Westminster, Capita, ad hoc subcommittee local audit bill. Maladministration

Since Parliament is in Westminster, it seems like a good idea to see whether Westminster is administering council tax discounts in accordance with the regulations, and whether it provides clear and accurate information to its taxpayers about their position and duties under council tax discount law.  It appears  not.  This means that the sub committee has an example very close to home of how incorrect data is created and shared in ways approved of by the Audit Commission and involving similar process to those it is being asked to approve of via Part 6 of the Local Audit Bill.

The first piece of bad news is that Capita is involved.  Capita routinely asserts that disregard categories are discounts*.  Disregard categories are just that: categories of people who fall to be disregarded, or who do not count as residents.  Capita run data mining exercises to identify people as 'high risk' fraud cases, in, it would appear, a similar manner to the NFI.  It usually misleadingly alleges or implies that the people concerned were claiming to live alone and puts only a fraction of single person discount recipients into the match.  

It uses the full electoral register to decide that people are entitled to a discount of the appropriate amount, which nobody has been given legal advice is legal and proper/pretends that it is checking 'claim's that particular circumstances exist.   Garbage like 'checking your validity to claim single person discount' is usually used about such reviews, in an apparent attempt to square Regulation 14 with what is being done.   Regulation 14 has been turned from a duty to  ascertain whether any discount applies and if so the amount of that discount into a duty to check whether a discount which DOES NOT EXIST is being 'claimed' correctly.

It works with credit reference firms to do this, and has lie detection voice software on its phones, another strategy which has caused injustice and distress.  The software appears to be unable to distinguish between innocent and distressed people and guilty people.  A great many entitled people have been distressed or enraged by the practices of councils which have outsourced revenue functions to Capita.  

Let us see whether the web site of Westminster provides clear and accurate information to taxpayers.

When we work out the full Council Tax amount we assume that two adults are living in the property.

You should not.  Council tax law contains no such provision or requirement.  

If you think you may be entitled to a discount or that your property is exempt for one or more of the reasons stated, you can download an application form from this page
carers discount, apprentice discount, child benefit discount, student discount

These are not discounts, as you are telling people, they are categories of disregarded adults. To be fair, another page does state that these groups of people are 'not counted' when deciding how many residents there are.   But the taxpayer has probably been confused by the bits he has read and may not get that far.  It seems fairly  clear, however, that Capita does regard some people as 'claiming' or 'receiving' a single person discount as opposed to a disregard discount, and that these are the people whose address is sent to the credit reference agency for data mining.  

This is confirmed by the council's annual council tax leaflet, a document which should contain information prescribed by law but which in fact contains other misleading information, again on the lines that disregard categories are types of discount. **

Other information provided by the council calls disregard categories 'status discounts'

Misinformation therefore runs throughout the documents via which this council communicates to its residents.  

If you are an individual living in Westminster you may use your My Westminster account to register a property and up to 6 residents for Council Tax. 

There is no requirement to 'register' residents for council tax.  The requirement for a local taxation register was abolished along with the poll tax.  Why is Westminster saying things like this on its web site.  The LGO has explicitly rebuked one council for telling people they have to 'register' for council tax, with the reason being that this is not true.






*
http://www.swindon.gov.uk/ab/ab-counciltax/ab-counciltax-discounts/Documents/counciltaxdiscountapplicationform1107.pdf

http://www.capita.co.uk/markets/Documents/SPD%20Brochure_2012_FINAL.pdf

http://www.mendip.gov.uk/NewsArticle.asp?id=SX9452-A783C976

**

http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/council%20tax%20a-z%202012-13.pdf

See also November 11 2011 nfi asserts in press release it has found More than £22 million worth of false claims for student and single person council tax discounts;  source cites 'Protecting the Public Purse' annual report for 2011

Capita and Council Tax and Maladministration in Derbyshire Bolsover, etc.

Capita appears to have been involved in one way or another with a number of councils which, on the face of it, look like they are not obeying the law on council tax properly and which are certainly putting legally false information on their web sites and or their documentation.  

By association,  this raises questions about the fitness of Capita to take on local government financial and administrative duties. 

The provision of clear and accurate guidance to both elected representatives and local taxpayers is a basic requirement of correct public administration.  To make it worse, Capita claim to 'capture key policies and procedures' as part of their discount review service.  On this basis, it really ought to be able to point out to councils that they are not complying with the law setting out the procedures which must be used: especially Regulation 15 (2) and 20 (3) (f).

This is particularly the case when Capita 'informs councils' that particular people are frauds.  


Notify the council of households that are making 
fraudulent SPD claims  and require notification of 
ceasing SPD benefit

NB Council Tax discounts are NOT benefits.

Capita appears to make this judgement that a person is a fraud  based on telephone calls and electronic voice analysis, and claims to employ trained fraud investigators.  Injustices arising from the reasonable distress of people who are falsely suspected of fraud being taken by a person of machine on the other end of a telephone line as evidence of something suspicious have already hit the pages of local newspapers.  

Their web site boasts about an initiative in Derbyshire, involving nine councils, including Erewash, Bolsover and Amber Valley.  The web site piece may be found here:

http://www.capita.co.uk/media/pages/CapitahelpsDerbyshirecouncilssave%C2%A325mwithsinglepersondiscountreview.aspx

As you will see, this web site uses the term 'review', a term which does not feature in the law, but which some councils use to describe carrying out the duty arising under Regulation 14 in respect of certain nominated households.   Some councils deny that the 'investigation letters' sent out in the course of such exercises are part of a fraud investigation: they claim they are merely trying to find out how much tax the householder pays.  There is a lot of double speak: for the same councils deny point blank that they are using the full electoral register to assess entitlement to a discount to Section 11.  (It is an offence, broadly speaking, for a council to use any information deriving from that register except for a statutory purpose related to crime prevention and law enforcement, with the general legal opinion apparently being that this means enforcing the criminal law, for otherwise, the provision would be pointless, other duties of the council being to do with enforcing the civil law). 

The duty is to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether any discount should apply, and if so the amount of that discount.  It applies in respect of every dwelling within the authority, not just in respect of certain individuals.  This duty has been described as a duty to make a tax assessment, and on that basis data protection exemptions apply: data used to assess or collect any tax are not protected under DP law from being shared.  

Regulation 14 gives councils the choice about how to go about making their decisions, but it is clear that all methods used must be in accordance with the law.  Any procedures which are at odds with the law are wrong and could be subject to judicial review or public complaint.  In other words, Regulation 14 does not allow any council to ignore Regulation 15 or to rewrite Regulation 16 or to provide to its residents legally false or misleading information.

Capita's web site makes it  that Capita believed it had identified people where there 'was a risk' that single person discount was not appropriate, using credit reference information.   This means that a 'hit' could arise merely because a person put their oldest child on the electoral register.  Only these people were contacted, using a 'review letter'.  

It seems clear that Capita suspected that every household to which a review letter was sent might be the site of a serious criminal offence of dishonesty and that this was done, not on the basis of any actual discrepancy but on the basis that there 'was a risk'.  

Given what we know about the maladministration and misinformation usually linked with such initiatives, let's check out the web sites of some of these councils, starting with Bolsover.  

Does Bolsover mislead its taxpayers?  Yes. 

At the click of a button we find legally inaccurate information on Bolsover's web site.

Following the award of a discount you must notify us immediately if your situation alters and the circumstances giving rise to a discount change. 

The same nonsense appears over and over again.  In some cases, including documentation sent to taxpayers,  it is accompanied by the threat of a financial penalty.

NOTE: YOU MUST NOTIFY THE COUNCIL IF THERE IS ANY CHANGE IN  YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY AFFECT YOUR ENTITLEMENT TO A DISCOUNT. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN A PENALTY BEING MADE. 


The web site also has what looks like a list of 'discounts' ranging from student to under 18s.  This last is particularly stupid, as under 18s do not count as residents at all, and so no discount applies.  The question does not arise. 

Does Derby mislead its taxpayers? Yes. 

What should I do if am getting a discount but my circumstances have changed?

You must tell us about the changes and we will tell you how it affects your discount.

For example, if you live alone you must tell us if another adult moves in with you.

Does Chesterfield Borough Council mislead its taxpayers?  Yes 

The CT leaflet for 2012/13 does not contain the required information about the duty under Regulation 16, but this might appear on the financial pages of the demand notice. 

However, a general leaflet put out by the Revenues department includes a blanket request to taxpayers to 

Tell us as soon as there are any changes in your 
circumstances. Delaying could increase the amount you have 
to pay towards your rent or Council Tax.

Chesterfield's web site does have false information about the NFI on it, however. It states that where a match is found it indicates that there is an inconsistency.  As we now realise, this is an utterly false assertion:  one of the main NFI exercises produces lists of people in whose situation there is no inconsistency at all,  but where the NFI thinks one might exist.  

Does Derbyshire Dales Council mislead its taxpayers?  No obvious evidence of this.  Some potential good practice examples for others to follow.

This isn't bad, so long as the Council does not invent a 'single person discount' allegedly different from disregard discounts. At least it does not claim that the duty arises in respect of changes that 'might' affect entitlement, a very common false assertion by local councils. 

If your bill indicates that a discount has been allowed, you must tell the revenues section within 21 days of any change of circumstances which affects your entitlement. If you fail to do so you may be required to pay a £50 penalty.


To be continued.