Looking across the documents collected together over the years, a gem from the NFI leaps out at me.
Reader, you will know that making a false or misleading statement to gain a financial advantage would be evidence of fraud (but would need mens rea proving of course). Common sense and the training of even a very junior solicitor at the Audit Commission should tell us that what a person is and is not 'claiming' is an important matter.
The point was several times to the NFI that it was false to state that certain 25% discount recipients were 'claiming' to live alone, or 'claiming to be entitled on the basis that they lived alone' and other 'claiming to be the only adult who counted, with all other residents disregarded'.
In a true gem of NFI nonsense, Mrs Akram replied that this point was 'merely pedantic'. You use the word 'claim' she said. Why shouldn't we?
Tuesday, 29 October 2013
council tax discount records are tosh.
Anybody annoyed by being the subject of an SPD or sole occupant or single person discount review might usefully ask the council for a print off of their ICT-based records.
These really complete the picture of the nonsense stated originally by Experian, together with the London Borough of Hillingdon.
Depending upon the ICT system in use, there is a column headed 'allowances'. This heading explains why so many clowns insist on saying that the SPD is 'in payment'. Some clot sees the word 'allowances' on a computer screen and assumes that people are being paid an 'allowance'.
Under this heading the words 'disregard discount' may appear. This explains why so many people think that there is such a thing as a 'disregard discount'. You won't get the code 'disregard discount' and the code 'single' on the same account at the same time.
This explains why the ICT geeks responsible for the original NFI cock up must have been full of glee when somebody put the idea to them that you could 'check' whether a person was entitled to a 'single person discount' by looking at the electoral register.
If the Information Officer at your council is a complete idiot she will tell you that your records do not contain any codes, that they provide details of discounts that you are claiming and that these records are self explanatory.
And I could name at least one council where the Information Officer appears to be a complete idiot.
But that is for another day.
These really complete the picture of the nonsense stated originally by Experian, together with the London Borough of Hillingdon.
Depending upon the ICT system in use, there is a column headed 'allowances'. This heading explains why so many clowns insist on saying that the SPD is 'in payment'. Some clot sees the word 'allowances' on a computer screen and assumes that people are being paid an 'allowance'.
Under this heading the words 'disregard discount' may appear. This explains why so many people think that there is such a thing as a 'disregard discount'. You won't get the code 'disregard discount' and the code 'single' on the same account at the same time.
This explains why the ICT geeks responsible for the original NFI cock up must have been full of glee when somebody put the idea to them that you could 'check' whether a person was entitled to a 'single person discount' by looking at the electoral register.
If the Information Officer at your council is a complete idiot she will tell you that your records do not contain any codes, that they provide details of discounts that you are claiming and that these records are self explanatory.
And I could name at least one council where the Information Officer appears to be a complete idiot.
But that is for another day.
Eastbourne false information on web site
Eastbourne Council really take the biscuit.
They quote this law on a page about 'single person discounts':
The Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Detection of Fraud and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 provide for a collecting authority to impose a penalty of £70 on a person if they fail to give prompt notification of a change of circumstances.
What takes the biscuit about this is that not only has this got nothing to do with the Section 11 25% discount but also it isn't even what the regulations themselves say in the case of council tax reduction schemes.
If you don't believe me, Google them.
The Council Tax Reduction Schemes Regs refer to Council Tax Reduction Schemes and not to discounts of 15% received in accordance with the law.
There is no obligation under any regulation to tell the council if you are not liable to a 'single person discount' which does not exist in law.
If you live in Eastbourne and you are still entitled to your 25% discount, tell them to get lost. Tell them to get their web site right.
Eastbourne have contracted out council tax discount functions to Northgate. One has to wonder to whom they have contracted out editing their web site. They have a duty to ensure that council taxation law is not misrepresented, but they probably sacked all the people who knew anything about it a long time ago and are absolutely powerless to do anything about the appalling illegality of what their contractors are doing.
Northgate claim that they are ascertaining entitlement to discounts. They appear to be making decisions about sole or main residence in ways that are odds with the requirements of the law, and on basis which valuation tribunals regularly throw out. So this is of dubious legality. To make it more annoying, they claim they are 'checking' whether people are entitled to receive a discount which does not exist but which they allege these people are claiming... same old same old
They quote this law on a page about 'single person discounts':
The Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Detection of Fraud and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 provide for a collecting authority to impose a penalty of £70 on a person if they fail to give prompt notification of a change of circumstances.
What takes the biscuit about this is that not only has this got nothing to do with the Section 11 25% discount but also it isn't even what the regulations themselves say in the case of council tax reduction schemes.
If you don't believe me, Google them.
The Council Tax Reduction Schemes Regs refer to Council Tax Reduction Schemes and not to discounts of 15% received in accordance with the law.
There is no obligation under any regulation to tell the council if you are not liable to a 'single person discount' which does not exist in law.
If you live in Eastbourne and you are still entitled to your 25% discount, tell them to get lost. Tell them to get their web site right.
Eastbourne have contracted out council tax discount functions to Northgate. One has to wonder to whom they have contracted out editing their web site. They have a duty to ensure that council taxation law is not misrepresented, but they probably sacked all the people who knew anything about it a long time ago and are absolutely powerless to do anything about the appalling illegality of what their contractors are doing.
Northgate claim that they are ascertaining entitlement to discounts. They appear to be making decisions about sole or main residence in ways that are odds with the requirements of the law, and on basis which valuation tribunals regularly throw out. So this is of dubious legality. To make it more annoying, they claim they are 'checking' whether people are entitled to receive a discount which does not exist but which they allege these people are claiming... same old same old
Sunday, 6 October 2013
Nathan Nash from Wales: potentially worthy of further investigation!
Audit Wales has for a long time being falsely asserting that the legal position of people on the NFI hit lists is that they are claiming to live literally alone.
So young Nathan Nathan is likely to have a long history of being involved with false and misleading information. Just the sort the NFI would love to take on. Really good at implying there is evidence against people when there isn't any. He is, to quote a lovely phrase from the Audit Commission, 'potentially worthy of further investigation'.
You can find more misleading and prejudicial information on Audit Wales' web site and on the web sites of the councils whose practices it praises in the blink of an eye than, well, than a person who expects councils to obey the law and distribute correct information about it would expect.
Conwy is a good example.
Web site, application forms, annual council tax leaflets, all full of junk misinterpreting the legal position.
In two languages. Bless.
So young Nathan Nathan is likely to have a long history of being involved with false and misleading information. Just the sort the NFI would love to take on. Really good at implying there is evidence against people when there isn't any. He is, to quote a lovely phrase from the Audit Commission, 'potentially worthy of further investigation'.
You can find more misleading and prejudicial information on Audit Wales' web site and on the web sites of the councils whose practices it praises in the blink of an eye than, well, than a person who expects councils to obey the law and distribute correct information about it would expect.
Conwy is a good example.
Web site, application forms, annual council tax leaflets, all full of junk misinterpreting the legal position.
If you claim any exemptions, discounts or disability
relief and your circumstances change, you must tell
us within 21 days. If you do not provide this
information, you could be required to pay a penalty
In two languages. Bless.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)