This is a list of just some of the information used by the Cabinet Office together with an account of the 'data analytics' used. This confirms that 'data analytics' is used to 'assess any likely fraudulent activity of an individual' and that the CO uses the full electoral register. You can see why Lord Wallace was taken aback. The information released by Snowden's is on a similarly shocking level, yet nobody moans when it's Tom Dick and Harry being snooped on instead of Agular Merkell!
2.1.7 Data obtained should allow for predictive analysis for fraud and compliance
purposes. Predictive analysis may also be used in broader business decision
making and risk management, for example where data is used to support
forecasting.
So it is more or less certain that the use of the full electoral register to produce lists of hundreds of thousands of people who are likely to engaging in fraudulent activity will continue. Whether the NFI will be allowed by the Cabinet Office to continue to produce 'bogus' figures for fraud and 'error' remains to be seen. One supposes that much will depend upon the political will and if past experience at a local level is anythiing to go by, which 'moral hobby horse' the civil servants are on. Clearly the principle of subjecting a person to a fraud investigation on the basis of 'data analytics' and the use of the term 'data matching' to include broader data analytics which have nothing to do with identifying inconsistencies requiring investigation is well established within the Cabinet Office.
Unfortunately the Cabinet Office doesn't appear to have caught up with the point that the NFI has altered the statutory code of DM practice, as it is still cooperating in putting out false information to the effect that it governs all NFI matching when as we know when the NFI says 'have regard to' it means think about whether or not to comply and feel free to decide that it doesn't if you can get away with it (as in the case of getting information on disc not through the secure web site).
And let's face it if Darren Shillington can get excuses like 'It's the fault of councils for sending us incorrect data' past Brandon Lewis, Minister in the bloody DCLG he will probably find the people in the Cabinet Office a pushover.
Monday, 10 February 2014
Monday, 3 February 2014
Maidstone
Maidstone, Kent, lists categories of disregarded people as 'exemptions' and tells people they have to apply for an exemption. What utter nonsense.
Thursday, 23 January 2014
It was bound to happen
Yes it was. Councils are so keen to get at people on discounts that at least one is now telling people in receipt of a discount under Section 11(1) of the Act that not telling it about changes in circumstances which there is no duty to report under council tax discount law is a criminal offence under the Council Tax Reduction Regulations.
Here they are:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/501/regulation/13/made
Can't recall if this one of of the outsourced services or not, but this sort of mess was predictable and this threat will no doubt be used by more than one council trying to bully taxpayers.
Here they are:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/501/regulation/13/made
Can't recall if this one of of the outsourced services or not, but this sort of mess was predictable and this threat will no doubt be used by more than one council trying to bully taxpayers.
Saturday, 28 December 2013
Sheer cheek of the Audit Commission
You will now find the following astonishing piece on the web site of the Audit Commission:
Please note the following:“Where a match is found it may indicate
- The Commission has made a very minor amendment to one sentence of the full text as it is produced on the Fair processing notice – Full text web page but not as it appears in the Code. The amendment is to the second paragraph and is shown below in tracked changes.
sthat there is an inconsistency that requires further investigation.”
This amendment was made to more fully align the full text with the relevant text in the Code, which states at paragraph 2.2.2. that “where a match is found, it indicates that there may be an inconsistency that requires further investigation”.
The full facts of the matter are that this change happened because the Independent Complaints reviewer, when dealing with a complaint that it was perfectly legal to be in receipt of a 'single person discount' when more than one adult was legally entitled to vote at an address, concluded, incorrectly in my view, that the Code was ambiguous between asserting that a match indicated that there was an inconsistency and that a match may indicate that there is an inconsistency. In deciding that the Code was 'ambiguous' she ignored the fact that the Code states that the aim of matching is to identify inconsistencies, and the fact that the arguments for such processing by national audit bodies and auditors were precisely that it was a cheap way of identifying discrepancies which provided reasonable grounds to suspect fraud.
The response of the Commission at that time was a) to modify its FPN and b) to ask participants to alter theirs, thereby avoiding the significant problems caused by the fact that from the outset it had asserted falsely that certain people could be certified by local councils as receiving or claiming a 'single person' discount on the basis that they lived alone, excluding cases where the discount was being applied on the basis that there was more than one sole or main resident but all except one fell to be disregarded.
The change was not made to bring the FPN 'into line' with the relevant text in the code, as the relevant text is the code as a whole and not this one section. As usual we get a biased and misleading account of history from the Audit Commission.
It is arrogance of the highest sort to make this sort of change, which affects the whole basis of the code fundamentally, without alerting or asking the permission of Parliament, without, apparently consulting counsel or any unbiased expert, or the Information Commissioner, while claiming that it is a 'minor' change. The definition of data matching as matching to identify actual inconsistencies was so firmly fixed in the minds of those involved that Barbara Follet, when Minister, wrote that 'by definition' all NFI data matching indicated discrepancies or inconsistencies. She cannot be blamed for this: it is what the NFI always said and what Parliament was told.
Wednesday, 18 December 2013
Single Person Discount Review
You may receive a 'review letter' from your council saying something like the following: 'Our records show that you are receiving a discount as you live alone. We are required to verify whether you are still entitled to this discount'.
The councils records cannot properly show that a situation which cannot arise in law applies to your finances. You are, or should be, receiving a discount of the appropriate amount on the assumption that the same rate will apply on every day of the coming year. If there is more than one entitled voter resident or if another person uses your address as a 'care of' address, this is in itself perfectly legal and does not constitute an irregularity. What would constitute an irregularity would be if there were two of you living there as your main home, and neither of you were disregarded. In which case you would owe the council more tax as the discount would not apply. But the odds are overwhelming that a person in receipt of one of these investigation letters is not guilty of any wrong-doing.
Beware of promising to inform the council if anybody moves in to your property. You have no such duty in law, but at least one council deliberately misleads people as to their obligations in this respect and several falsely state that not doing this means the council can penalise you. There are even council web pages which state that it is an offence and that you can be 'fined'.
Your council ought not to be providing you with false or misleading information, and such letters are valid grounds for complaints on the grounds of maladministration.
You might also ask your MP to write to Brandon Lewis asking him why he is providing incorrect information on official notepaper in this way, especially given the messages put out by his predecessor Bob Neill.
A good, if incomplete, research review of council tax discount law, dated early 2009 may be obtained from the Audit Commission and is also available on the Internet.
NB Dishonestly making false or misleading statements to obtain a financial gain can amount to fraud and should in all circumstances be avoided!
Wednesday, 20 November 2013
Andy Sawford and the Audit Commission
Andy Sawford seems to be a nice chap but he is naive.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmpublic/localaudit/131119/am/131119s01.htm
In the debate on the Local Audit Bill, he says that he is putting forward amendments which the Audit Commission wants. These are amendments which even the government has rejected. I suppose that for a politician taking a position suggested by an Audit Commission looks like a safe bet. The problem is that the Audit Commission is a strategic and political organisation with an agenda that goes far beyond mere audit functions. It is of course, also a business, which has 'commercial' interests in getting the powers to require councils to buy its products. Not many businesses have such instant access to public funds. One has to look for the sub text.
One cannot of course assume that word for word Mr Sawford is merely parroting Audit Commission briefings or policies but it is depressing to see how his words show lack of understanding of how the NFI actually works.
the Audit Commission has a wide range of powers, some of which it has used to good effect; its appointed power to ensure that bodies subject to data matching follow up on data-matching exercises could be lost
The Audit Commission has no powers at all to make councils 'follow up' matches which are risk-based or which indicate no fraud, error or maladministration. There is nothing to follow up. Moreover, some councils have pointed out that the costs of following up on hit lists with high false positive rates outweighs the income. Indeed, at one point the Commission stated that councils had a 'moral duty' to investigate anybody it decided might not be entitled to a council tax discount. Really? Maybe they have a 'moral duty' not to pester, intimidate and misinform taxpayers in line with the 'good practice' guidelines produced by the Audit Commission.
Mr Sawford may not be aware that on the CT discount 'high risk' matches the Audit Commission has stated a view that a council has a 'moral duty' to investigate people it thinks 'might not' be entitled to their discount, even though there is no evidence of fraud, error or maladministration. This is political, not purely financial. Do politicians never learn that they are not the only ones scoring political points?
Game set and match to the Audit Commission.
One can only hope that Mr Sawford gets subjected to a fraud investigation on such a basis, and that all his future potential employers and bankers are told that he was found to be a fraud risk. Because this is how, quite blithely, he is encouraging the NFI to behave. And of course they won't have bothered to say this in their briefings. Indeed, their local representatives are blithely making false allegations about people all over the country and putting these on line.
When Mr Sawford says that there will be no power to ensure that councils follow up on matches and that such powers currently exist, he is talking through his hat, and basing his arguments on false beliefs, which are positively and actively encouraged by the Audit Commission, about how the whole thing works.
What does the Minister say
Discussion on the arrangements for the governance of the national fraud initiative will continue with representation from interested parties.
These won't include any of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who have been subjected to unlawful 'investigations' by councils following the false legal guidance put out by Experian and since then other bodies. But it will include the credit reference agencies which make money out of the whole thing!
You have to fall about laughing when Mr Sawford goes on to mention maladministration and auditor powers to deal with this. The Audit Commission actively encourages maladministration as Mr Brandon Lewis's own comments have made clear. It is the tail which wags the dog. The chances of it accepting publicly its own massive and long-standing administrative errors are null. When told by its own legal department that something could more accurately reflect the law and is less than ideal, it in effect ignores it and carries on telling the same old lies about people as it did before, with the effect that credulous people relying on its advice then go on to administer people's financial affairs in ways which flout the law. Heads of Revenue Services stating that the council tax regulations are 'wrong' are merely stating explicitly the way things have been working since Experian and the other data merchants got the Audit Commission on in its Act. The NFI cannot put its own house in order and the government intends to let these people loose on even more data.
THe Government says that discussions on the governance of the NFI are underway. My view is that if the NFI gets its way there won't be any governance of it. It will produce a code giving it free rein to use data mining to finger people as fraud investigation targets on an evidence-free basis. The abortive investigations and false positives will continue. It may even continue to modify its own code while not even bothering to give the Minister a copy of the amendment to lay before Parliament. Would or would not this amount to a deception of Parliament? I think it would.
The rejection of this amendment is a good sign, as otherwise the NFI could broaden the data it gets its hands on and also pretend even more appallingly than ever that fraud suspects are not fraud suspects.
A small ray of hope, perhaps.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmpublic/localaudit/131119/am/131119s01.htm
In the debate on the Local Audit Bill, he says that he is putting forward amendments which the Audit Commission wants. These are amendments which even the government has rejected. I suppose that for a politician taking a position suggested by an Audit Commission looks like a safe bet. The problem is that the Audit Commission is a strategic and political organisation with an agenda that goes far beyond mere audit functions. It is of course, also a business, which has 'commercial' interests in getting the powers to require councils to buy its products. Not many businesses have such instant access to public funds. One has to look for the sub text.
One cannot of course assume that word for word Mr Sawford is merely parroting Audit Commission briefings or policies but it is depressing to see how his words show lack of understanding of how the NFI actually works.
the Audit Commission has a wide range of powers, some of which it has used to good effect; its appointed power to ensure that bodies subject to data matching follow up on data-matching exercises could be lost
The Audit Commission has no powers at all to make councils 'follow up' matches which are risk-based or which indicate no fraud, error or maladministration. There is nothing to follow up. Moreover, some councils have pointed out that the costs of following up on hit lists with high false positive rates outweighs the income. Indeed, at one point the Commission stated that councils had a 'moral duty' to investigate anybody it decided might not be entitled to a council tax discount. Really? Maybe they have a 'moral duty' not to pester, intimidate and misinform taxpayers in line with the 'good practice' guidelines produced by the Audit Commission.
Mr Sawford may not be aware that on the CT discount 'high risk' matches the Audit Commission has stated a view that a council has a 'moral duty' to investigate people it thinks 'might not' be entitled to their discount, even though there is no evidence of fraud, error or maladministration. This is political, not purely financial. Do politicians never learn that they are not the only ones scoring political points?
Game set and match to the Audit Commission.
One can only hope that Mr Sawford gets subjected to a fraud investigation on such a basis, and that all his future potential employers and bankers are told that he was found to be a fraud risk. Because this is how, quite blithely, he is encouraging the NFI to behave. And of course they won't have bothered to say this in their briefings. Indeed, their local representatives are blithely making false allegations about people all over the country and putting these on line.
When Mr Sawford says that there will be no power to ensure that councils follow up on matches and that such powers currently exist, he is talking through his hat, and basing his arguments on false beliefs, which are positively and actively encouraged by the Audit Commission, about how the whole thing works.
What does the Minister say
Discussion on the arrangements for the governance of the national fraud initiative will continue with representation from interested parties.
These won't include any of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who have been subjected to unlawful 'investigations' by councils following the false legal guidance put out by Experian and since then other bodies. But it will include the credit reference agencies which make money out of the whole thing!
You have to fall about laughing when Mr Sawford goes on to mention maladministration and auditor powers to deal with this. The Audit Commission actively encourages maladministration as Mr Brandon Lewis's own comments have made clear. It is the tail which wags the dog. The chances of it accepting publicly its own massive and long-standing administrative errors are null. When told by its own legal department that something could more accurately reflect the law and is less than ideal, it in effect ignores it and carries on telling the same old lies about people as it did before, with the effect that credulous people relying on its advice then go on to administer people's financial affairs in ways which flout the law. Heads of Revenue Services stating that the council tax regulations are 'wrong' are merely stating explicitly the way things have been working since Experian and the other data merchants got the Audit Commission on in its Act. The NFI cannot put its own house in order and the government intends to let these people loose on even more data.
THe Government says that discussions on the governance of the NFI are underway. My view is that if the NFI gets its way there won't be any governance of it. It will produce a code giving it free rein to use data mining to finger people as fraud investigation targets on an evidence-free basis. The abortive investigations and false positives will continue. It may even continue to modify its own code while not even bothering to give the Minister a copy of the amendment to lay before Parliament. Would or would not this amount to a deception of Parliament? I think it would.
The rejection of this amendment is a good sign, as otherwise the NFI could broaden the data it gets its hands on and also pretend even more appallingly than ever that fraud suspects are not fraud suspects.
A small ray of hope, perhaps.
NFI for maladministration and error
Given that the NFI actively spreads misunderstanding of council tax discount law, it is ironic that somebody thought fit to give it the power to use data matching to identify maladministration and error. It is already asserting that maladministration and error exists where there is no such thing: this is precisely how its figures for council tax discounts fraudulently or erroneously awarded are compiled, by including large numbers of cases where there was no maladministration or error and, therefore, no additional income.
A body which has since at least 2006 misinterpreted codes on council tax computer systems is not trustworthy to decide whether there has been maladministration.
Who decided that the Audit Commission had 'wider powers' to use data matching for this purpose? It appears to be the case that the Audit Commission believes that it already has these powers. But they cannot be an audit function unless the maladministration involves some breaching of financial regulations. So where do they come from? Those proposing this amendment to the Local Audit Bill must h
The government response was that this function would overlap with the functions of the Local Government Ombudsman and there would be no powers to act upon it. So it would cause duplication and be unnecessary. It was concerned about how the powers might be used. Well for once, good for the government.
It is controversial to say that data matching powers used in the capacity under audit powers would not be available to new bodies: they would be available to auditors who have the right to inspect documents and information relating to the accounts of audited bodies. This must come from the data matching businesses who fear losing a stream of income which they had via the Audit Commission.
Members seem utterly naive about the capacities of 'data matching'. These have been displayed in the Cabinet Office's own attempts to use data matching and data mining to get the electoral register up to date. The research report highlighted lack of understanding of the data by those using it as a major issue.
One billion pounds worth of fraud, error and maladministration. This is a lot of money they say. But they are thinking that this is money lost to the public purse. A great deal of this will not be money lost as it includes cases where a single person discount which does not exist is cancelled and replaced by a 'disregard discount allowance' which does not exist either.
A body which has since at least 2006 misinterpreted codes on council tax computer systems is not trustworthy to decide whether there has been maladministration.
Who decided that the Audit Commission had 'wider powers' to use data matching for this purpose? It appears to be the case that the Audit Commission believes that it already has these powers. But they cannot be an audit function unless the maladministration involves some breaching of financial regulations. So where do they come from? Those proposing this amendment to the Local Audit Bill must h
The government response was that this function would overlap with the functions of the Local Government Ombudsman and there would be no powers to act upon it. So it would cause duplication and be unnecessary. It was concerned about how the powers might be used. Well for once, good for the government.
It is controversial to say that data matching powers used in the capacity under audit powers would not be available to new bodies: they would be available to auditors who have the right to inspect documents and information relating to the accounts of audited bodies. This must come from the data matching businesses who fear losing a stream of income which they had via the Audit Commission.
Members seem utterly naive about the capacities of 'data matching'. These have been displayed in the Cabinet Office's own attempts to use data matching and data mining to get the electoral register up to date. The research report highlighted lack of understanding of the data by those using it as a major issue.
One billion pounds worth of fraud, error and maladministration. This is a lot of money they say. But they are thinking that this is money lost to the public purse. A great deal of this will not be money lost as it includes cases where a single person discount which does not exist is cancelled and replaced by a 'disregard discount allowance' which does not exist either.
Tuesday, 19 November 2013
Prediction as to the future
The government will make regulations insisting that councils subject people to fraud investigations even though there is nothing inconsistent in their situation. It will make councils suspect innocent people of fraud using the full electoral register via its new powers to make regulations. The NFI tail will wag the dog.
This is the conclusion to be drawn after listening to the debate on the local audit and accountability bill, especially the clause giving the power to the minister to make regulations
The NFI rules the world. Pity it is incompetent and corrupt.
This is the conclusion to be drawn after listening to the debate on the local audit and accountability bill, especially the clause giving the power to the minister to make regulations
The NFI rules the world. Pity it is incompetent and corrupt.
Sunday, 10 November 2013
Alan Bryce
Mr Bryce is the 'author' of the 2012 edition of Protecting the Public Purse.
In this he refers to the NFA publication 'Fighting Fraud Locally'. We have met the NFA before. Their person in charge of local government said she hadn't read any council tax law, which may explain why she believes that the electoral register if 'up to date' is a reliable guide to entitlement to a 'single person discount'.
However you define this, this belief is wrong and unjustifiable. So thanks Mr Bryce for referring us to a bad source. The NFA's ideas on good practice are limited and in places positively harmful.
On your Masters they will have taught you to take 'grey literature' with a pinch of salt. In a position of power and authority working for a government agency, similar principles should apply.
In respect of council tax, this publication includes a 'case study' which repeats the false assertions about 'single person discounts' which the Audit Commission Legal Department scotched some years ago: namely that certain people are receiving a discount on the basis that they live alone. This is probably an Experian based exercise or a clone, such as those run by Capita, Northgate and so on.
According to Mr Bryce's own figures, data from over 25, 000 people was sent to the agency with this legally inaccurate information.
Well done Mr Bryce: not many people can make false statements about as many people as you did all in one fell swoop. The case study goes on to state that cases where there was an indication that there was dual or multiple occupancy were contacted. Why? It is perfectly proper to receive a discount if more than one adult is resident. Some people are said to have admitted to no longer being liable, and , on the usual but legally false allegations used by the NFI these people will be counted as 'additional income' though most of them will have been entitled to their discount. It's just that when the NFI sticks a different label on them it counts them as 'not entitled' or as a case of fraud or error.
Mr Bryce praises Gravesham Council. If he bothered to read the documentation provided to taxpayers within that council, he would note that it conflicts with the legal briefing on council tax law which he uses as a reference: you know, the one that was produced in response to complaints and which was circulated for future reference. Or perhaps nobody bothered to give young Mr Bryce a copy of that legal briefing? Has it been hidden where nobody can see it and put two and two together, perhaps?
Whereas that briefing points out that there is no duty to report changes in circumstances per se, Gravesham tells people that there is and that they may be liable to pay a penalty of £70 if they don't. Well done Mr Bryce for once again encouraging malpractice in local government.
Well done Mr Bryce. This sort of praise proves the point made over and over that the NFI actively encourages bad practice. Well done. Who want the rule of law anyway? Who wants due process and privacy and all that tosh! Spread misinformation and suspicion about innocent entitled people. Climate of mistrust. You can't trust anybody, especially government agencies: they're the worst for not getting their facts right.
This sort of thing isn't good practice, Mr Bryce. Far from it. Please obtain the legal briefing on council tax discount law provided for the information and future reference of your own department and read it.
Failure to do this would be unacceptable, as, it seems to me, you ought to be familiar with the laws governing the legal frameworks around local government finance, whereas this report strongly suggests that you are not.
Thank you.
In this he refers to the NFA publication 'Fighting Fraud Locally'. We have met the NFA before. Their person in charge of local government said she hadn't read any council tax law, which may explain why she believes that the electoral register if 'up to date' is a reliable guide to entitlement to a 'single person discount'.
However you define this, this belief is wrong and unjustifiable. So thanks Mr Bryce for referring us to a bad source. The NFA's ideas on good practice are limited and in places positively harmful.
On your Masters they will have taught you to take 'grey literature' with a pinch of salt. In a position of power and authority working for a government agency, similar principles should apply.
In respect of council tax, this publication includes a 'case study' which repeats the false assertions about 'single person discounts' which the Audit Commission Legal Department scotched some years ago: namely that certain people are receiving a discount on the basis that they live alone. This is probably an Experian based exercise or a clone, such as those run by Capita, Northgate and so on.
According to Mr Bryce's own figures, data from over 25, 000 people was sent to the agency with this legally inaccurate information.
Well done Mr Bryce: not many people can make false statements about as many people as you did all in one fell swoop. The case study goes on to state that cases where there was an indication that there was dual or multiple occupancy were contacted. Why? It is perfectly proper to receive a discount if more than one adult is resident. Some people are said to have admitted to no longer being liable, and , on the usual but legally false allegations used by the NFI these people will be counted as 'additional income' though most of them will have been entitled to their discount. It's just that when the NFI sticks a different label on them it counts them as 'not entitled' or as a case of fraud or error.
Mr Bryce praises Gravesham Council. If he bothered to read the documentation provided to taxpayers within that council, he would note that it conflicts with the legal briefing on council tax law which he uses as a reference: you know, the one that was produced in response to complaints and which was circulated for future reference. Or perhaps nobody bothered to give young Mr Bryce a copy of that legal briefing? Has it been hidden where nobody can see it and put two and two together, perhaps?
Whereas that briefing points out that there is no duty to report changes in circumstances per se, Gravesham tells people that there is and that they may be liable to pay a penalty of £70 if they don't. Well done Mr Bryce for once again encouraging malpractice in local government.
Well done Mr Bryce. This sort of praise proves the point made over and over that the NFI actively encourages bad practice. Well done. Who want the rule of law anyway? Who wants due process and privacy and all that tosh! Spread misinformation and suspicion about innocent entitled people. Climate of mistrust. You can't trust anybody, especially government agencies: they're the worst for not getting their facts right.
This sort of thing isn't good practice, Mr Bryce. Far from it. Please obtain the legal briefing on council tax discount law provided for the information and future reference of your own department and read it.
Failure to do this would be unacceptable, as, it seems to me, you ought to be familiar with the laws governing the legal frameworks around local government finance, whereas this report strongly suggests that you are not.
Thank you.
Transparency International UK
This organisation needs to be shot (joke!!)
Their report is hugely amusing.
It refers to various Audit Commission activities and data mining uncritically, and one may suspect that the people actually believe that the AC spreads knowledge about 'good practice'. This is questionable. Given that councils actively refuse to apply council tax regulations on the basis that the Audit Commission won't let them, somebody is having the wool pulled over their eyes.
I think they ought to call for an investigation of 'corruption' within the Audit Commission. Why for example, are Audit Commission staff apparently ignoring the legal briefing prepared some years ago spelling out the facts of council tax discount law? Whether this results from fraud or error or has another explanation, it is difficult to say. But it is an apparent inconsistency requiring investigation!
3. Understanding and awareness of fraud and corruptionThe Audit Commission previously collected and published data, allowing it to trace patterns and trends in corruption and fraud. If the Commission is abolished, it will be difficult to know whether councils are detecting more or less corruption and fraud, or engaging in better or weaker monitoring and prevention activities.Recommendation: Notwithstanding the localism agenda, it is critical that some element of central oversight is restored. At a minimum, this should involve data collection and consistent standards.
At a select committee discussion on contracting out and the problems of monitoring contracts, this organisation was present. All the time I felt the irony that firms like Capita. Experian and so on are taking money for carrying out council duties arising under Regulation 14 of the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement Regulations and doing this in flagrant breach of the regulations themselves. They misrepresent Regulation 14 as a duty to check a 'claim' which has no legal existence against credit reference agency information. They claim to be 'checking your validity to claim' a single person discount which nobody can in law be receiving, selecting households for this purpose where the code 'single' represents facts stated or thought to be correct on a certain day in the past, and not the basis on which the person is claiming or receiving their bill. Time after time, the relative cheapness of this procedure is cited, as opposed to the old way of sending out canvass forms before the start of each tax year. This is supposed to be 'joined up' government, data sharing, transformational and so on. What it is is in fact corrupt, incompetent and improper.
Moreover, the Audit Commission, whose contribution to probity was much lauded by this same firm, has been at the forefront of this, guided by four London Boroughs which got it wrong. Subsequently, the Audit Commission Legal Department sent to the NFI a legal briefing pointing out the basic flaw in the logic, but that report has most certainly not been acted upon, and promises issued about providing better information about this data mining activity have been honoured only in the breach.
Sorry Transparency International, your intentions might be good, but the problem I have located goes to the bodies managing the audit: the Audit Commission itself. Proudly independent, and highly political and strategic, and staffed by persons who get things wrong so often that it is frightening, this unaccountable body has got away with far too much, and is now actively seeking to ensure that some of the worst of its mistakes live on after it.
Wednesday, 6 November 2013
Hmmm. The present position of the present Minister and his advisors, including the Audit Commission?
James Hacker: You said yourself how important these select committees are. I cannot be seen to mislead them.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You will not be SEEN to mislead them.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You will not be SEEN to mislead them.
CIPFA HYPOCRITES
Financial information for decision makers
This is rich from an organisation which routinely misrepresents council tax law.
At all levels in the authority those taking decisions
must be presented with relevant, objective and
reliable financial analysis and advice, clearly
setting out the financial implications and risks.
The CFO has an important role in ensuring
necessary financial information and advice is
provided to the Leadership Team and decision
makers at all levels across the authority.
Meaningful financial analysis and robust and
impartial interpretation is a key component in
performance management, asset management,
investment appraisal, risk management and
control.
This is rich from an organisation which routinely misrepresents council tax law.
At all levels in the authority those taking decisions
must be presented with relevant, objective and
reliable financial analysis and advice, clearly
setting out the financial implications and risks.
The CFO has an important role in ensuring
necessary financial information and advice is
provided to the Leadership Team and decision
makers at all levels across the authority.
Meaningful financial analysis and robust and
impartial interpretation is a key component in
performance management, asset management,
investment appraisal, risk management and
control.
Monday, 4 November 2013
Data Mining by the Audit Commission
We were warned. Here is a paper by No to ID
http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/NO2IDSeriousCrimeBillBriefingFEB2007.pdf
http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/NO2IDSeriousCrimeBillBriefingFEB2007.pdf
Sunday, 3 November 2013
capacityGRID
A new name has to be added to the list of entrepreneurs making a living out of 'checking' whether people are still entitled to a 'single person discount' which does not exist and which therefore the council has no business to be checking. This is called a 'single person discount review' and a 'single occupant discount'. The firm involved this time is called 'capacityGRID' and unless is it stupider than Experian it will have written conditions in the contract making the council fully responsible in case of various mess ups.
The good people of Dumfries and Galloway have not taken this crap lying down. Indeed, the whole business made the BBC News. The news editor might be worth contacting if you have suffered with these pernicious reviews in your part of the country.
This reminds me that Audit Scotland, fooled by legally inaccurate guidance provided to it by the Audit Commission years ago, insists that some people are receiving a discount 'on the basis' that they literally live alone, which is just as false in Scotland as it is in England.
They pulled the same trick in Scotland as they have considered pulling here if need be, and are doing at the very moment: they told Parliament that they used 'data matching' to identify inconsistencies, got the Scottish Parliament to give them the power to write their own code of data matching practice, and then produced one from which all references to inconsistencies had been surgically removed. This sort of thing cannot be accident or coincidence. It has to be part of a deliberate strategy.
This is a Scottish council, but the law is more or less word for word the same as the English Law.
As happens with come councils, the council claims to be ascertaining whether any discount should apply, and if you don't reply to their letter, they take it as
'confirmation that your circumstances have changed and your single occupant discount will be removed.'
The point here is that a 'single occupant discount' can still apply if your circumstances have changed. Only if a new resident isn't in one of the disregard categories will entitlement to your dsicount change.
Watch the statistics carefully. We know that councils claim 'additional' income in cases where an ICT code which misrepresents the legal position of taxpayers has been changed and no additional income of any sort identified.
The BBC web site quotes somebody from the council as referring to this discount as a 'benefit' which is irksome. They also claim that the council has a 'statutory duty' to review discounts, a piece of equivocal nonsense, as the duty to which it refers is not a duty to 'review' anything, but a duty to ascertain whether ANY discount applies and if so the amount of that discount. There is and can be no statutory duty to 'review' a discount which is a figment of the mind of some moron looking at an ICT screen and misunderstanding what he sees there. Nothing about this is legal in terms of data protection. The problem is that you have to be able to sue the council which involves being rich to get anything done about it.
The good people of Dumfries and Galloway have not taken this crap lying down. Indeed, the whole business made the BBC News. The news editor might be worth contacting if you have suffered with these pernicious reviews in your part of the country.
This reminds me that Audit Scotland, fooled by legally inaccurate guidance provided to it by the Audit Commission years ago, insists that some people are receiving a discount 'on the basis' that they literally live alone, which is just as false in Scotland as it is in England.
They pulled the same trick in Scotland as they have considered pulling here if need be, and are doing at the very moment: they told Parliament that they used 'data matching' to identify inconsistencies, got the Scottish Parliament to give them the power to write their own code of data matching practice, and then produced one from which all references to inconsistencies had been surgically removed. This sort of thing cannot be accident or coincidence. It has to be part of a deliberate strategy.
This is a Scottish council, but the law is more or less word for word the same as the English Law.
As happens with come councils, the council claims to be ascertaining whether any discount should apply, and if you don't reply to their letter, they take it as
'confirmation that your circumstances have changed and your single occupant discount will be removed.'
The point here is that a 'single occupant discount' can still apply if your circumstances have changed. Only if a new resident isn't in one of the disregard categories will entitlement to your dsicount change.
Watch the statistics carefully. We know that councils claim 'additional' income in cases where an ICT code which misrepresents the legal position of taxpayers has been changed and no additional income of any sort identified.
The BBC web site quotes somebody from the council as referring to this discount as a 'benefit' which is irksome. They also claim that the council has a 'statutory duty' to review discounts, a piece of equivocal nonsense, as the duty to which it refers is not a duty to 'review' anything, but a duty to ascertain whether ANY discount applies and if so the amount of that discount. There is and can be no statutory duty to 'review' a discount which is a figment of the mind of some moron looking at an ICT screen and misunderstanding what he sees there. Nothing about this is legal in terms of data protection. The problem is that you have to be able to sue the council which involves being rich to get anything done about it.
Tuesday, 29 October 2013
"Merely pedantic' a gem from Nagina Akram
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?
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?
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.
Friday, 27 September 2013
More Audit Commission incompetence Rob Hammond again
Despite having denied that the NFI is limited to actual inconsistencies, the NFI has once again reverted to pretending that its matches indicate inconsistencies requiring investigation. This despite having emailed participants to ask them to modify the 'privacy notices' they produce.
I don't think it is a coincidence that it is publishing this 'lie' when the government is debating the future of the NFI. I think the truth is a somewhat inconvenient aspect of this whole thing which it would clearly be useful to the Audit Commission to suppress. Perhaps the truth is too 'comprehensive' for its liking and it prefers to be economical with this commodity?
The document is not signed, so we have to blame the bosses: ie the Chair, the Chief Executive, and the 'team, which comprises a list of names I have encountered before, mostly on legally inaccurat/misleading reports and minutes referring to 'unambiguous' matching when the exercise is nothing of the sort.
Darren Shillingdon
Yvonne Addison
Sally Gubbins
Nathan Boon
Robert Hammond (who we know puts out false information about council tax discounts)
and a new one
Nathan Nash.
He studied Geography at Cardiff. Well qualified for the job, then?
I don't think it is a coincidence that it is publishing this 'lie' when the government is debating the future of the NFI. I think the truth is a somewhat inconvenient aspect of this whole thing which it would clearly be useful to the Audit Commission to suppress. Perhaps the truth is too 'comprehensive' for its liking and it prefers to be economical with this commodity?
The document is not signed, so we have to blame the bosses: ie the Chair, the Chief Executive, and the 'team, which comprises a list of names I have encountered before, mostly on legally inaccurat/misleading reports and minutes referring to 'unambiguous' matching when the exercise is nothing of the sort.
Darren Shillingdon
Yvonne Addison
Sally Gubbins
Nathan Boon
Robert Hammond (who we know puts out false information about council tax discounts)
and a new one
Nathan Nash.
He studied Geography at Cardiff. Well qualified for the job, then?
Saturday, 21 September 2013
Hugely amusing: Audit Commission's view on Government position on 'data matching'
The Audit Commission has published a 'Public Briefing' on the Local Audit and Accountability Bill including the data matching provisions.
It mentions the need for transparency and accountability, which, given the misinformation it has provided to the Dept for Communities about its own activities and its tendency to refuse to provide information at the drop of a hat had me laughing out loud. A body which misleads judges about council tax discount law at F of I tribunal directions hearings is on weak ground when calling for accountability, and appears to revel in its own lack of accountability (AKA independence from government perhaps).
The Audit Commission cannot even provide Audit Guides on council taxation law which correctly represent the statute, regulatory and case law on the topic and does not understand the full electoral register which it uses to categorise hundreds of thousands of perfectly innocent people whose situation is fully regular as potential frauds (though it lies about doing this if pressed).
The NFI appears to be proud of 'Protecting the Public Purse' which it has used to disseminate misinformation for years, especially about council tax discounts. It wants something similar to continue and draws people's attention to it in their public briefing. One can see why they want similar stuff to happen in the future, but it will be harder I think for the Cabinet Office to get away with publishing false information about taxpayers that it was for the Commission because it is nearer to accountability, unlike the Audit Commission which appears to be accountable to nobody. Of course, using a public briefing to direct people to a source of misleading and prejudicial information about incorrectly claimed or awarded discounts is a good strategy if you want to mislead the public and electors. I suppose they want to go out in the same way they lived, on a wave of misinformation.
This comments that not all of the Commission's activities arise from data matching powers but some of them arise from the powers of auditors to test systems for fraud and error. These powers were of course those relied upon by the Audit Commission in its incompetent and fallacious arguments for auditors getting access to the full electoral register. It argued (though it now denies this, despite still doing it) that by comparing council tax data sets providing details of discounts being 'claimed' by taxpayers with the full electoral register the auditor could find evidence of error: if the discount was right then the electoral register had to be wrong.
This is the position still maintained by Robert Mauler, who was clearly not able to understand the Audit Commission's own belated legal briefing pointing out that it was nonsense.
Indeed, one reason that the AC went to the trouble of getting the data matching powers put into law was precisely because so many people objected to the uses it was making of the full electoral register, which could lawfully include disregarded adults and also adults whose main residence was not at the discounted address.
When persuading Parliament to give it these powers the Commission persistently and falsely told elected legislators that it used data matching to identify inconsistencies, to the point where Barbara Follett, when Minister, falsely believed that 'by definition' all NFI data matching (barring errors in the data) identified error and maladministration. It is precisely because of the nonsense repeatedly published and spread by the NFI and its regional advisors that so many people came to believe that some people are receiving a 25% discount on the assumption that they literally live alone with no disregarded housemates and that if there is another resident this provides evidence on a case by case basis of fraud (usually alleged falsely to be in the form of an ongoing but legally non existent 'claim').
Subsequently, the NFI began to argue - in effect - that the sort of data mining which Parliament had been so keen to prevent, and which the statutory code of data matching practice was supposed to ensure was the only use by the NFI of personal data was legitimised by the point in the law which said that data matching could be used to assist in the prevention and detection of fraud. So long, the NFI began to argue as the exercise as a whole succeeded in finding some frauds, it did not matter whether or not the computer programmes were designed to identify actual inconsistencies.
I note that the NFI specifically wants additional data mining powers as it mentions fraud risks explicitly. This is the bit that should not be added willy nilly, as being suspected of fraud and investigated for fraud on a 'risk' or statistical basis rather than because there is evidence that you have done something wrong is a horrible experience which far too many people already experience.
The NFI's partners include too many IT experts and people from the murky world of data mining, many of whom have their own financial and profit agendas and limited concern for the privacy of individuals, natural justice or democracy, as evidenced by their continuing publication of misinformation regarding council tax discounts and their relationship to the full electoral register.
They are not an objective, or even, as ample evidence shows, a competent body to comment, not even on matters of local governance and taxation.
It mentions the need for transparency and accountability, which, given the misinformation it has provided to the Dept for Communities about its own activities and its tendency to refuse to provide information at the drop of a hat had me laughing out loud. A body which misleads judges about council tax discount law at F of I tribunal directions hearings is on weak ground when calling for accountability, and appears to revel in its own lack of accountability (AKA independence from government perhaps).
The Audit Commission cannot even provide Audit Guides on council taxation law which correctly represent the statute, regulatory and case law on the topic and does not understand the full electoral register which it uses to categorise hundreds of thousands of perfectly innocent people whose situation is fully regular as potential frauds (though it lies about doing this if pressed).
The NFI appears to be proud of 'Protecting the Public Purse' which it has used to disseminate misinformation for years, especially about council tax discounts. It wants something similar to continue and draws people's attention to it in their public briefing. One can see why they want similar stuff to happen in the future, but it will be harder I think for the Cabinet Office to get away with publishing false information about taxpayers that it was for the Commission because it is nearer to accountability, unlike the Audit Commission which appears to be accountable to nobody. Of course, using a public briefing to direct people to a source of misleading and prejudicial information about incorrectly claimed or awarded discounts is a good strategy if you want to mislead the public and electors. I suppose they want to go out in the same way they lived, on a wave of misinformation.
This comments that not all of the Commission's activities arise from data matching powers but some of them arise from the powers of auditors to test systems for fraud and error. These powers were of course those relied upon by the Audit Commission in its incompetent and fallacious arguments for auditors getting access to the full electoral register. It argued (though it now denies this, despite still doing it) that by comparing council tax data sets providing details of discounts being 'claimed' by taxpayers with the full electoral register the auditor could find evidence of error: if the discount was right then the electoral register had to be wrong.
This is the position still maintained by Robert Mauler, who was clearly not able to understand the Audit Commission's own belated legal briefing pointing out that it was nonsense.
Indeed, one reason that the AC went to the trouble of getting the data matching powers put into law was precisely because so many people objected to the uses it was making of the full electoral register, which could lawfully include disregarded adults and also adults whose main residence was not at the discounted address.
When persuading Parliament to give it these powers the Commission persistently and falsely told elected legislators that it used data matching to identify inconsistencies, to the point where Barbara Follett, when Minister, falsely believed that 'by definition' all NFI data matching (barring errors in the data) identified error and maladministration. It is precisely because of the nonsense repeatedly published and spread by the NFI and its regional advisors that so many people came to believe that some people are receiving a 25% discount on the assumption that they literally live alone with no disregarded housemates and that if there is another resident this provides evidence on a case by case basis of fraud (usually alleged falsely to be in the form of an ongoing but legally non existent 'claim').
Subsequently, the NFI began to argue - in effect - that the sort of data mining which Parliament had been so keen to prevent, and which the statutory code of data matching practice was supposed to ensure was the only use by the NFI of personal data was legitimised by the point in the law which said that data matching could be used to assist in the prevention and detection of fraud. So long, the NFI began to argue as the exercise as a whole succeeded in finding some frauds, it did not matter whether or not the computer programmes were designed to identify actual inconsistencies.
I note that the NFI specifically wants additional data mining powers as it mentions fraud risks explicitly. This is the bit that should not be added willy nilly, as being suspected of fraud and investigated for fraud on a 'risk' or statistical basis rather than because there is evidence that you have done something wrong is a horrible experience which far too many people already experience.
The NFI's partners include too many IT experts and people from the murky world of data mining, many of whom have their own financial and profit agendas and limited concern for the privacy of individuals, natural justice or democracy, as evidenced by their continuing publication of misinformation regarding council tax discounts and their relationship to the full electoral register.
They are not an objective, or even, as ample evidence shows, a competent body to comment, not even on matters of local governance and taxation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)