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

Timothy Pitt Payne 'The Cannock Chase Opinion'

I wondered whose side Mr Pitt Payne had been on in the disputes about Audit Commission access to the full electoral register for the purpose of, allegedly, falsely suspecting people of fraud on the basis of mistaken beliefs about UK law and how it works.  For Mr Pitt Payne has since written that the rationale was that the exercise provided prima facie evidence of fraud.  The exercise, as a subsequent legal briefing by the Audit Commission Corporate Services Legal Team, provides no evidence of fraud under either heading within the Fraud Act.   It would appear, to judge from Clive Lewis's account of Mr Pitt Payne's opinion,  that Mr Pitt Payne had not been asked for an opinion on council tax discount law or electoral law.   Rather like Clive Lewis, he appears to have taken it as read that the NFI's account of the matter would have been properly researched legally.

It turns out that Mr Pitt Payne was consulted by Cannock Chase council.    His view that the rationale was that the exercise provided prima facie evidence of fraud may have come from chats with people at Cannock or it may have arisen for other reasons, such as the use of the terribly misleading nickname to describe a discount of 'the appropriate amount'.  

However, since the Audit Commission's Legal Services Department provided the NFI with an account of how discounts work in terms of the law, the idea that this exercise provides fraud under either heading within fraud law has been utterly discredited.

This means that both the Audit Commission and Cannock wasted a lot of public money on legal opinions when both of them ought, as a matter of their general duties and professional responsibilities, to have known that the premises on which the electoral register were being sought were utterly false.

One barrister involved did appear to have some inkling of the problems, but his views were not considered, and were not even apparently put to Clive Lewis.  Perhaps this is because they were considered too risky to ask him about?

One also has to assume either that neither of these gentlemen live in a council area which provides clear information about the Section 11 25% discount via their council tax demand notices as required by law or that they simply do not read them.  For otherwise they should know how this discounts ought to be administered.

One cannot help but wonder how far the administrative practices of Cannock Chase at the present date comply with the regulations and generally with the requirements of public administration and so on.  No prizes for guessing the answer ...


http://www.cannockchasedc.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?fileID=632

If you wish to apply to be disregarded*  please write to:

Local Taxation and Benefits Section
Cannock Chase District Council
PO Box 28
Civic Centre
Beecroft Road
Cannock
Staffs
WS11 1BG

* How silly is this! A disregarded person cannot 'apply' to be disregarded.  Such matters would be for the liable adult.  Some disregarded persons cannot be liable.  Moreover, being disregarded happens as a matter of law, it is not a status which has to be 'applied' for to exist; it exists as a matter of law. 


LIVING WITH SOMEONE, BUT CLAIMING SINGLE PERSON DISCOUNT?

It is perfectly legal to 'claim' a single person discount if you are 'living with someone'.

Have Your Circumstances Changed?
If you receive any form of reduction to your bill, you must tell us about any change of circumstances within 21 days. If you do not do this, the Council may impose a £70 penalty.

Here the council is attempting to scare people into providing information about third parties which they have no duty to provide under council tax law by threatening them with a penalty.  This is plain and clear maladministration.  Councils should provide clear and accurate information at all times.  If you live in Cannock Chase, complain to the council, and when if tells you the Auditors make it behave like this, as it may well do,  or misstates your obligations under Regulation 16 or any other regulation, then complain to the LGO and to your MP. 

NOT TRUE! NOT TRUE! GOTCHA! BULLYING, MISINFORMATION, MALADMINISTRATION, THREATS.

How the Council will use your information
The Council is required under section 6 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 to participate in the National Fraud Initiative (NFI) data matching exercise. Council Tax data will be provided to the Audit Commission for NFI and will be used for cross-systems and cross-authority comparison for the prevention of fraud. 

We advise Council Taxpayers that the data held  by the Council in respect of your Council Tax liability will be used for cross-system and cross-authority comparison for the  prevention of fraud.

Translation?  We are likely to falsely suspect you of fraud because we are not complying with council tax regulations and administering discounts in accordance with the law. 

The Council is also working in partnership with other Staffordshire authorities to conduct a review of 

Council Tax discounts. The Council may share the information you have provided to the Council Tax section, with private 

organisations employed to conduct data matching for the prevention and detection of fraud. 

Want to bet on whether or not the council is sharing 'codes' such as disregard and single, which have no basis in council tax  discount law, probably with Experian  (now of Dublin to avoid paying tax, apparently, formerly of Nottingham), but possibly via Northgate or Capita?  It looks like a dead cert.

Data matching helps to 

identify fraud but it may also identify claims and payments which are erroneous. Where a match is found it may indicate 

that there is an inconsistency which requires further investigation. No assumption is made as to whether there is fraud, 

error or another explanation until an investigation is carried out. 

What nonsense this is! Why should anybody have to carry out an investigation seeking an 'explanation' when no inconsistency has been discovered? Who has anything to 'explain'?  Except Cannock Chase which ought to explain why it is providing misinformation about council tax discount law to its citizens via its web site when providing incorrect information is maladministration.

For further information you can visit our website www.cannockchasedc.gov.uk/nfi

Please let us know if you are claiming a Council Tax discount for living alone but your circumstances have changed.


BINGO!

Northgate and maladministration and misinformation

http://www.northgate-ispublicservices.com/Literature/Files/Northgate-PS-Flyer-Single-Person-Discount-July-2012.pdf

This flier lists councils who have used Northgate (and Experian) for council tax purposes.

It starts with somewhat ludicrous figures, apparently provided by the National Fraud Authority, who would not it appears be able to recognise Section 11 of the Local Government Finance Act if it were copied out and sent to them and which usually gets its figures from the National Fraud Initiative whose misuse of statistics is well established.  But the purposes here is rhetorical, to get the reader worked up by suggesting that there is a really really big problem.  This time the figure is 100 million a year, in terms of people who 'could be wrongly claiming the discount'.  The National Fraud Authority does not know how the discount should be 'claimed' and frequently praises councils which do the whole thing quite wrongly.    But that suits Northgate, who are making money out of councils which do the wrong thing.

We can list some of these councils, as Northgate kindly provides their names.

York, Gedling, Kirklees, Croyden, and South Holland and East Lindsay.

The links below are links to inaccurate information and guidance on the web sites of the councils in question.


Gedling 

Has misinformation built into the demand notice itself, listing both single person and non existent 'disregard discounts' on it.  Generally Gedling appears to be trying to maintain some sort of council tax register and it provides inaccurate and misleading advice about the sorts of thing one has to report to the council.  This is consistent with the false accounts of 'single person discounts' provided by Northgate and Experian.

http://www.gedling.gov.uk/counciltaxbenefits/yourbillexplained/counciltax/

http://www.gedling.gov.uk/counciltaxbenefits/counciltax/discountsexemptions/singlepersondiscount/

http://www.gedling.gov.uk/media/documents/counciltaxbenefits/Single%20Occupier%20Discount%20Application.pdf  (signed by named council individual)

http://www.gedling.gov.uk/media/documents/counciltaxbenefits/School%20Leaver%20Disregard%20Application.pdf

Council tax demand notices: example of web site: not carrying out law properly.  Not notifying the assumptions, and apparently not making them either.

http://www.gedling.gov.uk/media/documents/counciltaxbenefits/Council%20Tax%20Explanatory%20Notes%20201213.pdf

THIS LATTER IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT WHICH FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE REGULATIONS.

Kirklees


http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/you-kmc/payments/counciltax/councilTaxDiscounts.aspx#anchor2

http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/you-kmc/payments/counciltax/pdf/counciltaxdiscounts.pdf


Has someone moved into this address, meaning that you no longer qualify for a single persons discount?


Confuses disregard categories with discounts.  Enough said on this council.  Plainly putting misinformation into the public domain.

Croydon

Unusual council this: it can tell the difference between a disregard category and a discount, but it does provide misleading information.  When councils do this it should be noted that they always err on the side of telling you you must provide third party information to them when in law it is not that simple or when it is plain wrong.

Croydon was of course one of the councils involved in the NFI pilots, and so it has it would appear been indulging in maladministration and injustice for longer than almost any other council in the country (See NFI steering committee briefing note for 2007).  In 2007 it subjected over 7 thousand dwellings to fraud investigations, and nobody appears to have any evidence about how many of these investigations were utterly abortive in the sense that they found no actual inconsistency and there was full entitlement all the time.

Do I have to tell someone if I am a 'disregarded' person or if someone living with me is 'disregarded' person?

You need to tell us about the 'disregarded' persons living with you if:

• you want to claim a discount

• You can only get this discount if you live alone

There is no excuse for putting this sort of nonsense on your web site.

South Holland and East Lindsay

http://www.e-lindsey.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F9263066-69C8-40CF-AB5B-A394A5317E1D/0/Eastlindseycounciltax1213.pdf

This notice does give a clear list of people who are not counted when seeing how many people live in your house.

But from the web site we find this nonsense, with a typical threat just to scare people into providing information they have no duty to provide.

Change in circumstances

You must tell us within 21 days if there is a change that might affect your Council Tax discount.

We can impose a £70 penalty on you if you do not tell us about a change.

Pages

• Bands and Appeals
• Council Tax
• Disabled Relief
• Exemptions
• Liability
• Non-Payment Help
• Payment Methods
• Recovery Actions
• Reminders and Notices
• Self Serve

South Holland

Blatant and dangerous nonsense on web site


If you are given a discount and your circumstances change, the law says you have to tell us within 21 days.  If you 

don’t, we can impose a financial penalty.  Telling other parts of the Council (such as completing the electoral 

registration form) is not enough unless you tell them the information is for council tax as well.

The ones that get it right

We have spent enough time pointing out councils that misrepresent council tax discounts and the way they work.

This Blog page is for examples of good practice, statements by councils and other bodies which fairly and accurately represent the legal position of both council tax departments and council tax payers.

The CAB's guide is good, but not detailed enough to support people being caused distress by legally inaccurate advice from the council.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/tax_e/tax_council_tax_ew/council_tax.htm

Brighton has good advice in one leaflet

• If your circumstances change and you are no longer entitled to the

discount or exemption, what should you do?

You must tell the council within 21 days of the change.  If you do not, you could be

penalised. Contact Local Taxation Services, P O Box 2929, Priory House, Brighton

BN1 1PS or telephone (01273) 291291 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            (01273) 291291      end_of_the_skype_highlighting.

However Brighton spoils it all by putting an incorrect and threatening demand for information the taxpayer has no duty to supply on the application forms.

Preston

If, after disregarding a person, the number of adults resident is only one, a 25% discount is given. If all the residents are disregarded, a 50% discount is given. The types of people who are not counted are listed below.

So far, so good.  

However Preston spoils it by listing what are in fact discount categories as different discounts.

It also includes false information in a 'fact sheet'. 


If you receive a discount/exemption and your circumstances change you must tell
Preston City Council within 21 days.

Nonsense!

If anybody can find a council which does provide accurate information throughout its facts sheets and documents I should be very glad to hear of it.

valuation tribunal appeals on 'sole occupant discounts'

The Valuation Tribunal Service is putting edited accounts of tribunal cases on line.  These include some where entitlement to a discount of the appropriate amount has been an issue. 

People faced with cancelled discounts as a result of councils use of credit reference information in an attempt to decide whether any discount applies may find these useful, though they do not set  precedents as higher court cases do.  

I have put some even shorter accounts here.  These are of course  summaries of summaries, and while every effort has been made to represent all parties in  the VT reports fairly, readers should check for themselves.

I would also suggest that some comments by the tribunals misrepresent council tax law, and that therefore these summaries should not be thought to be reliable sources on that matter. 

For example, one report refers to a requirement to 'register' for council tax, when the requirement to 'register' was abolished along with the community charge register.  Indeed, a  Local Government Ombudsman report recently rebuked a council specifically for telling a person he had failed in a duty to register for council tax when no such obligation existed in law.

The accounts are therefore somewhat depressing in terms of the quality of evidence and argument that they present, but let that pass.  

The originals are available here

http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/Decision_query.asp?Mode=1&Decision=liability



APPEAL NUMBER: 0116M87053/176C  Appeal Allowed

http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/Decision_Documents/documents/CT_England/0116M87053176C.pdf

The issue was whether a person identified as Mr W resided at the property.

The electoral register was used as evidence by the council.  Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the council was using this for a statutory purpose related to law enforcement and crime prevention, since acting otherwise would not be proper.  However this was a civil process and the issue was ostensibly the residence of Mr W and the amount of tax payable, which is a civil, not a criminal matter.  The tribunal does not appear to have considered this evidential issue.   However the VT has said that this is a matter which the courts might in future address as a point of law: would the purposes of the tribunal be a statutory function related to crime prevention and law enforcement? 

The appellant was unable to provide evidence of an alternative address for Mr W, though the tribunal was of the opinion that it was 'reasonable' to ask the appellant for such information.  

However, the view of the tribunal was that the council had failed to provide sufficient evidence that Mr W was resident at the property.  

This shows that both parties have an evidential burden.  

This case is rather like the one reported by the Guardian Consumer journalists recently.

Appeal allowed.

Appeal: 4310M85557/254C  Appeal Not Allowed

http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/decision_document.asp?Decision=liability&appeal=%2Fdecision_documents%2Fdocuments%2FCT_England%2F4310M85557%2F254C


The issue here was the sole or main residence of the appellant's sister.  

The appeal was not allowed. 

Among the pieces of evidence considered were the place where the appellant's sister  kept her cat.  It was kept at the appeal address. 

 http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/decision_document.asp?Decision=liability&appeal=%2Fdecision_documents%2Fdocuments%2FCT_England%2F0910M86854%2F254C

The tribunal report states that: 


'In cases of this nature, the persuasive or legal burden of proof was on the appellant to satisfy 
the panel that his daughter’s main residence was at another place.'

I feel that this assertion is somewhat controversial.  There is a difference between having a persuasive burden and a burden of proof which the report does not reflect.

The comment in this report appears to be slightly at odds with the comment in case
APPEAL NUMBER: 0116M87053/176C

It would appear that both parties have to provide evidence, not just the appellant.  However, the nature of the evidence in each case is different. 

APPEAL NUMBER: 2735M65890/244C  APPEAL ALLOWED

http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/decision_document.asp?Decision=liability&appeal=%2Fdecision_documents%2Fdocuments%2FCT_England%2F2735M65890%2F244C

In this case, a council tried to argue that an apprentice disregard did not apply because the apprentice earned extra money from overtime and this took him above the earnings limit.

One has to congratulate the tribunal for refusing to accept this nonsense.

It looked up the word 'salary' in a dictionary and came to a conclusion on that basis.

This case shows the detail in terms of private personal information which may be obtained and used for unfair purposes by councils seeking not to deduct the appropriate amount from council tax bills.  Given that the private information about overtime was not relevant to the taxation decision, I wonder whether the use made of that information was unlawful in terms of the Data Protection Act, which has a taxation exemption as well as a crime exemption. 

Audit Commission Incompetence?

According to Bob Neill he told the Audit Commission that every time the 'SPD' NFI exercise was mentioned it should be made clear that it does not show lack of entitlement, failure to provide information required by law or even any maladministration on the part of the council.

It seemed reasonable to ask the NFI what action if any it had taken in response to this message, especially as some of its publications appear not to comply with this advice.

When asked via a F of I request for information relating to Bob Neill's advice on the so-called single person discount exercise,  and on the NFI's subsequent discussion of this advice, the NFI simply said it could not identify the letter containing the advice nor, therefore, any other relevant information.

'We are therefore unable to carry out an effective search of our records to identify any information which we may hold with may fall within the scope of your request '

Is it reasonable to describe a government agency which cannot locate an important communication which may have required important actions on its part  as incompetent?

It is not quite clear here whether the Freedom of Information officer is using the royal 'we' or whether in fact nobody at all at the Audit Commission can identify the document.

Moreover, if formal consideration had been given to the advice, they would be able to work backwards from the discussion of the advice to the document or communication in which it was provided.

They asked whether the F of I requester had a  copy.   If they have lost it, perhaps they ought to ask Bob Neill for another?  Or perhaps it was an error on Bob Neill's part of that of his office, and it was never sent.

I think this may well be within the scope of the sort of difficulty which may fall within the average person's definition of incompetence.  Or perhaps, to take a phrase out of the AC's own book, it may indicate that there is incompetence, or constitutes potential incompetence.

Burnam-on-Sea.Com

http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/news/2012/benefit-fraud-27-07-12.php

'If a check indicates that another adult is living at the address the discount will be withdrawn'

What gibberish.  Not unless they want several hundred Tribunal Appeal decisions against them!

What idiots!

data discoveries another set of data cowboys? Southampton, another council not getting the law right

Data Discoveries boasts proudly of helping Southampton City Council to identify people inappropriately claiming single person discount housing benefit either falsely or in error.  This firm should not be allowed access to personal data again.

This firm really does not seem to know what it is talking about.  Single person discounts are not a form of housing benefit, to begin with.  A firm so ignorant of the basics is merely showing its own incompetence by making such statements, which it then compounds by slinging mud at Southampton residents in the following text.

This firm uses a traffic light system to categorise a discount as almost certainly inappropriate (green, challenge with confidence);  medium risk (amber); and red (meaning there is an inconsistency).

I do not for one moment believe that this firm can decide where the sole or main residence of an individual is and whether or not they fall to be disregarded.

But it is clear that 6,000 people in Southampton - out of 36,000 'single person discount records' supplied to it by Southampton City council were identified as 'suspect cases' by this firm.

It claims that 80% of these corrected their 'discount applications'.  This is nonsense.  It is clear from the forms on the web site of the council that the 'corrections' are not corrections at all.  There is nothing incorrect about receiving a 'single person discount' if more than one adult is resident.  There

Is this firm aiding and abetting a council which is acting in breach of council tax discount law, by any chance?

The answer appears to be that it most certainly is.

My guess is that this firm put the code 'single person' on the records of some unfortunate people and simply asked Data Discoveries in how many of these cases it thought that more than one adult might be resident, and that the firm is falsely implying that if more than one adult was resident (in any sense) there was an inconsistency.  As they fail to name any individuals those people maligned in this way are relatively powerless to respond to the insult.

Southampton does not appear to know that one can 'claim' a discount retrospectively, as it says on its web site that it will not allow such claims.  Anybody who objects to this should simply appeal via the Tribunal system as this sort of practice by council is already the subject of adverse decisions and should be challenged.  The law has no such restriction on backdating applications.

It goes without saying that Southampton is not applying CT law correctly, and, therefore, that the allegations of inconsistency which this data firm is so proud of making are inappropriate and therefore, arguably, in breach of data protection law.  We have all the usual mistakes: allegations that residents have to inform the CT department of changes in circumstances when no such obligation exists in law, misleading use of the term 'single person discount' when no such concept exists in CT discount law, and so on.

Somebody resident in Southampton should report them to the Local Government Ombudsman.

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.

www.socitm.net and Gedling's legal mistakes and yet another misleading story this time courtesy of Mr Duncan Adamson

Duncan Adamson, Business Development Manager for Gedling Borough Council has produced a ghastly Powerpoint presentation about a non existent entity called a 'single person discount'.


This may be found on the website at www.socitm.net. 


Socitm is an association for IT and related professionals working in the public and 'third' sectors.


The last thing that such professionals need is badly presented and legally inaccurate and misleading Powerpoint presentations such as that produced by Mr Adamson.


Mr Adamson's second slide is called 'the legislation', and his third slide includes just part of Section 11 of the Local Government Act.  This appears to satisfy Mr Adamson that he has located the non existent beast called a single person discount: he appears to think that Section 11 1 a of the Act sets out such a thing.  


I say this because his Powerpoint includes newspaper articles which grossly misrepresent council tax discount law, and the actual processes involved in the exercise, run by Northgate and Experian Ltd of Nottingham.   For example, an article from the Nottingham Evening Post which features as one of Mr Adamson's slides incorrectly claims that the council  was catching out people who were 'getting the 25% discount while living with other people.'  One has to ask why Mr Adamson includes legally misleading newspaper articles in his presentation.  Does he, for example, approve of legally misleading newspaper articles, or does he simply not have sufficient grasp of local government taxation law to see that the articles are misleading? 


It is, of course, perfectly legal and proper, with respect both to the council and the taxpayer,  for a 25% discount to be deducted when a person is living with other people.  The other people may a) fall to be disregarded and/or b) not have their sole or main residence at the address in question.  


This process is by now familiar: first the council runs a publicity campaign which succeeds mainly in fuelling public misunderstanding of council tax discount law.   Local papers carry news stories completely misrepresenting the nature of the discount and the nature of the uses to which personal data is being put by Northgate and Experian Ltd., of Nottingham.  


Both these companies are getting an enormous amount of free publicity at public expense and this publicity in effect falsifies completely that which they are doing with the vast amounts of personal data passed on to them by banks, councils and other bodies.  


I believe that the public has a right to know and understand the real nature of this processing and the underlying reasoning. 


In the case of Gedling, a poster with a picture of an old vinyl single (some pun on the word 'record' appears to be intended) includes the words 'single resident discount'.  If Gedling calculated and issued council tax notices 'on the basis' that the taxpayer was literally the sole resident of their house, then they were acting in breach of not just one but two clearly expressed regulations.  As only one side of the poster is reproduced one cannot check whether this too included legally inaccurate information.  


One cannot help but feel that Mr Adamson is probably completely unaware of how this law works.  The fact that a whole slide in his show asks just one question: 'Is there someone else there?' appears to confirm this.  As is plain to a person who has taken the trouble to read the law properly it would be perfectly legal and proper for someone else to be there. 


Let us check Gedling's web site to see whether the council puts legally accurate information out there.  If so, then Mr Adamson would only have to read his own council's web site to get things straight in his mind.  We can live in hope.  But, no. 


We very quickly find legally inaccurate information on the 'Discounts' page of the Gedling Council  web site.  Here it is.

The Council tax charge is based on two adults sharing a property. If there are more than two adults, the amount payable will not increase.  A discount of 25% is available when only one person aged 18 years or over lives in a property.

If you are already receiving a discount and another adult moves in with you, you must notify us of any change clearly stating the date this change took place. You can do this using our Change in Circumstance online form.

This is plain wrong. If you are receiving a discount of 25% your duty is to inform the council within so many days if you have reason to believe you are no longer entitled to a discount of any amount or you are only entitled to a lower percentage discount.  There is no duty whatsoever to inform the council of changes of circumstances per se.


Perhaps nobody at Gedling has read as far as Regulation 16? 

The council's web site has a form using yet another misleading nickname, this time 'single occupier discount'.  This form is signed by a Miss Caddy, who cannot use the comma correctly, as evidenced in this legally misleading and inappropriate sentence:

I will notify the Local Taxation Section of any change in my circumstances, which may affect my entitlement to this discount within 21 days of the change occurring.

The form bears a logo with the words 'IRRV Organisational Member'.  IRRV trained staff ought to know what the duties of the taxpayer are, and they also ought to know what the duties of local councils are in respect of the provision of information. It should be clear and accurate.  


So were Mr Adamson to check his own council's web site to check up on the law, he would find himself none the wiser and would probably end up getting the wrong end of the stick.  If  he asked Miss Caddy, who appears to have been given a post linked with Revenue Collection, it seems likely that he would also receive misleading information from her.  What chance to Gedling taxpayers have of the council carrying out its legal and moral duty to provide legally accurate information. 

It would appear to be that Gedling would struggle to carry out its obligations to its taxpayers, since its own Business Development Manager cannot compile a legally appropriate/accurate Powerpoint.  In effect the council is simply slandering large numbers of its taxpayers. How many we shall never know since Mr Adamson has not chosen to honour us with this information.

Indeed, there would appear to be governance issues generally, since the council has shown itself up by publishing what appears to be clear evidence of its administrative and legal failings on the Internet in this way. 

Mr Adamson tells us that the council uses an Integrated Revenue and Benefits IT system from Civica.   The make up of this system appears to be the source of the problem. Such systems have different cells or categories for people who at some point were believed to be living alone and for those dwellings where at some point a resident was known to fall to be disregarded.  It seems clear that far too many people fall into the trap of thinking that the categories on the software systems represent a legal distinction which does not exist. Therefore, when so-called 'SPD' information is passed electronically to Northgate, they do not understand the legal basis upon which BY LAW they must have calculated the bill and the legal assumptions upon which the bill was issued.  

Mr Gedling produces some figures: whether they are, as similar figures appear to be in other contexts, distorted by the inclusion of cases where a non existent 'single person discount' of 25% was 'cancelled' only to be replaced simultaneously with an equally non existent 'disregard discount' it is difficult to say.  It is also impossible to verify these figures since nobody can say how many people would have responded positively to the paper canvass which Mr Gedling and Experian Ltd of Nottingham are so proud of doing away with. 


Mr Adamson quotes Regulation 14 and highlights the word 'reasonable'.  It is not 'reasonable' for the council to fail to abide by the Local Government Finance Act, and associated Demand Notice Regulations and Administration and Enforcement Regulations: it is maladministration. 

Gedling could do better. 

The mess hits the Guardian and Bob Neill writes in to comment

In December 2011, Miles Brignall, consumer affairs writer at the Guardian, wrote an article entitled 'The Council Tax Shock of Living Alone'.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/dec/16/council-tax-shock-single-person-discount?INTCMP=SRCH


The article, published in a series dealing with unfair and irrational treatment of consumers, deals with the distress experienced by a Bristol resident at the hands of her local council, acting on the basis of what one might rather loosely call 'information' provided by credit reference agency Experian.

The victim on this occasion was Sarah Dodds, a semi-retired civil servant, who, ironically, used to work helping to catch people who were committing benefit fraud.  This just shows that no matter how responsible your past or impeccable your references and reputation, you get caught up in this mess.

Ms Dodds' experience mirrors my own: first she received a distressing letter, in her case demanding £3,000 in back paid tax, and then she was informed by council staff that they suspected her making a fraudulent claim for the discount.  Fraud, put briefly, consists of dishonestly making a false representation with the intention of making a gain or causing loss or risk of loss to another or of failing to declare information required by law.

It would appear that the council did not find it necessary to produce any evidence to support this suspicion.  This is partly because the whole matter was dealt with under civil powers.  Put simply, councils do not require evidence.

In a crucial passage, the journalist exposes the fact that Experian have been grading people according to alleged potential risk that they might be thieves.   It is apparently on this basis that the council suspected Ms Dodds of fraud and issued with her with a backdated adjusted demand notice.

The law requires the council to inform all residents of their right to appeal against a decision on discounts to a valuation tribunal. It seems that the council failed to inform Ms Dodds of this right, and it refused to discuss the matter with the journalist either.  On this basis, Ms Dodds would appear to have grounds for complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.  Councils should provide clear and fair information and should not cause distress by failing to provide it.  But as all too many of us know, once they suspect you of fraud, they treat you like dirt.  Moreover, whoever was handling the case may have been a temp hired in for the purpose, with a limited brief and no background knowledge in any of the relevant tax law.

The council refused to send anybody round to inspect Ms Dodds' home, which, she felt would demonstrate that no other person lived there.  Its actions appear to speak complete indifference to the distress and reputation of a person whose life has been spent protecting the public purse.  It stated 'adamantly' that unless Mrs Dodds could tell them where her son lived it would insist on her paying their backdated demand.  Mrs Dodds says she does not know and as they are on bad terms she has not been able to find out.  This mirrors similar cases where marriages have dissolved on bad terms and the partner remaining in the house does not know where the other now lives. In such cases, some councils do simply refuse to believe the remaining partner and issue bills for the full amount.

The other point relating to an appeal is, of course, as I have pointed out, that when a council suspects you of fraud or assumes that you are a thief, and uses civil methods to recover money it thinks you have stolen there is no appeal against the criminal 'charge' as no formal charge is ever brought.  Yet the fact that you have been suspected of that offence becomes marketable data, which may be sold to and by, yes, you guessed it, credit reference agencies.

The trigger for all this appears not to have been the electoral register, but the fact that bank statements and other letters to Ms Dodds' estranged son were still being sent to his mother's address.  This is the data from which the council derived its conclusions that his mother was probably a thief.

An Experian spokesperson appears to have given an account of the matter which is misleading in terms of council tax law, as it asserts that the legal position of Ms Dodds at the time it did its data matching was that she was 'claiming to live alone'.  This would not have been the case.  I put this down to simple ignorance on the part of Experian, but this drip drip of misleading information does nothing to clarify matters and serves only to further sling mud at innocent people.

Indeed, the article was commented upon by a number of people all to happy to mentally convict not just Ms Dodds but also the estranged son of fraud on the basis that he ought to be paying council tax but is not. Nobody has established that he is not paying council tax, or that he is liable to  pay council tax. Of course, even if his sole or main residence was with his estranged mother he would still not necessarily be liable to pay the tax: clearly it is she who must pay it.

Residence in terms of council tax discount law is sole or main residence. The law clearly acknowledges that a person may have more than one residence but they only count as living at one of these for council tax purposes.

Experian's web site states that if another person is 'linked' with your address they may be able to break this link if you contact them.  There is however nothing wrong with having another person 'linked' with your address through data bases: it is not a crime and it certainly does not establish that your home is their sole or main residence.

But as we have seen time and time again evidence has nothing to do with it.

Brignall notes that some councils use Northgate, who appear to be subcontractors who obtain contracts from councils and then purchase data matching from Experian. Experian regard this as a significant part of their business; in other words they make a lot of money from it.  I obtained a copy of the contract between them and my council and it had disclaimers all over it so that nobody caused distress or injustice could go after Experian: the council takes full responsibility.

Brignall mentions Lincolnshire and Rushmoor as two other councils running similar exercises. I shall check whether their web sites contain the almost routine misinformation about council tax discounts.

He also asserts that councils are allowed to contract out the job of checking entitlement to discounts. I do not know where he derived this wording, but what they are allowed to contract out is the legal duty to ascertain, once every year, whether any discount should apply and if so the amount of that discount.

It was certain that this mess would hit the national papers.  Ms Dodds is clearly intelligent and articulate enough to get her case aired in the national press. The majority of victims of it are not.

Bob Neill, at the time Undersecretary of State at the Department of Communities and Local Government saw fit to comment that people should not be deterred from claiming their discounts and explaining how these discounts worked. He also emphasised that councils ought to provide reliable information.

But as my research shows, almost no councils do, and those using firms like Experian and Capita seem to be amongst the worst of the bunch.