shucks

The Audit Commission cannot find Mr Neill's letter and denies that it would count as anything requiring attention under the Audit Commission Act if it could find it.  It says it has no record of having received it.

So I am left nicely caught between two powerful bodies, a government department and a government agency, one says the letter was copied to the AC and the AC says it has no record of receiving this.

In yet another self contradictory twist a new person asserts that the Audit Commission agrees with Bob Neill and has always taken his position.  Well, that person needs to read up on it, for it has certainly not done any such thing.

On the contrary it insists that the output shows that a person is making two contradictory claims at the same time.  If it did what Bob Neill said it would stop saying this.  It tells councils that if the discount is right the code 'needs' altering.  This is not what Bob Neill says, for it implies that council records are wrong.

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. 

Council Tax A Guide to Your Bill

Those of you experiencing a 'single person discount review' who have been falsely told that your records show you are receiving a discount because you live alone, or whose council is threatening to cancel your discount if you do not live alone may find this booklet useful.  Though out of date in some respects, on discretionary discounts, on the 25% discount and on liability this is still a useful guide.


http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1198171

For guidance on what the Local Government Ombudsman can and cannot do, see here.

http://www.lgo.org.uk/complaints-about-council-tax/

You can complain if your council provides you will misleading or upsetting information, and the more of you who do this, the better.

Specifically, the LGO has already criticised councils for telling people they have to 'register' for council tax and that if they have not registered they have done something wrong.  There is no such thing as a council tax register.

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.

draft Local Audit Bill

Here are some slightly edited extracts from my response to the consultation on the draft Local Audit  Bill.

You might like to use some of them in contacting your MP or Eric Pickles direct, especially if you have been subjected to a fraud investigation simply because in all good faith you put your oldest child on the electoral register.

Question. Do you have any comments on the new owners of the NFI?

Tthe term 'owner(s)' and 'operational ownership' are alarming.  This exercise must not be delegated to somebody who is not fully accountable and transparent, or who is not subject to F of I and other public law procedures. 

The responsibility and ownership must remain with the Secretary of State, who must be fully and directly responsible for it and be prepared to take the hits should anything go wrong.  

And perhaps,  once the Audit Commission has gone, some councils, who have never liked the NFI, may be more willing than previously to take up the word 'reasonably' from the law and challenge demands for information they do not have and which in some cases they more or less fabricate to appear to comply.  

My own council simply invents the data it submits for the SPD processing ie it 'assumes it to exist', which amounts to the same thing, claiming Regulation 14 gives it the discretion to do what it likes and says if I don't like it I shall have to take it to court. 

Whoever the new managers are, they must be prepared to invest time and legal research to ensure they accurately and fully understand all the legal frameworks within which the personal data and meta data submitted for computerised and verbal analysis are created and shared.   

Without such expertise, the chances are that false and prejudicial information may be created and shared, in circumstances of general secrecy and lack of accountability.  

Specific concerns arise about the National Fraud Authority in this respect. 

The reasons for this are as follows.  

 The law concerning the use of the full electoral register to ascertain entitlement to a council tax discount is, on the account of some Audit Commission employees, still a legally live issue.  They have refused F of I requests on these grounds, so this must be the case. 

What is clear from both the statutory provisions, and from the case law on sole or main residence as defined in the Local Government Finance Act, is that one may not use the electoral register - whether 'up to date' or not -  to determine where the sole or main residence of an adult is.  Therefore, one cannot use it to determine whether entitlement arises under either section of Section 11(1) of the Local Government Finance Act.   

Clearly, disregarded adults are entitled to vote and have a right to be on the electoral register even if a 25% discount has been deducted from the tax bill issued to the liable adult. 

Even the NFI has never claimed that one can use the register to determine entitlement.  It stated in writing on 13/11/2009  'The Commission agrees that the electoral register cannot determine entitlement, and has never argued that it could.'   

Yet the National Fraud Authority has published (on its web site) a leaflet by CIPFA by a committee with NFA representation falsely alleging that 'experience shows that' the electoral register 'if up to date' is a reliable guide to a council tax discount, and adds to this an assertion that library membership records can achieve the same purpose.  

 It is absurd to claim that local library membership records, if up to date, can determine where the sole or main residence of a person is and whether or not they fall to be disregarded. 

The NFA claims that CIPFA provided this information.   I have spoken to Greg Marks of CIPFA, whose name is on the leaflet and he knows that what the leaflet says is wrong.   He knows for example, that disregarded students may register to vote twice, once at their parental home and once at their main, university town residence, and that this legal electoral registration does not effect entitlement to a Section 11 discount. 

A body which publishes and disseminates legally inaccurate material of this sort has demonstrated that it is not an appropriate body to be entrusted with analysis of and reporting on personal information. 

One can go further. 

SPD law is quite clear that every year, the council must take reasonable steps to ascertain whether a discount should apply and having done this and found reason to think one does it must in law issue the demand notice on the basis of a  compulsory assumption that the same amount and rate will apply on every day of the coming tax year and it must inform the taxpayer of this assumption (which is in the public domain in any case).   

The NFA is actively promoting the administrative practices of some councils who routinely act in breach of SPD Regulations and have practices which fly in the face of public law generally, which requires councils to provide fair and accurate guidance to taxpayers. 

One such council lists disregard categories as different 'discounts' and informs people they can be fined for not telling the council if the basis of entitlement changes from one disregard category to another or if it changes from being the sole adult (who is not disregarded) to being the only one of several adults (but all but one are disregarded).  

This is a legal nonsense as Schedule 2 of the Act, Section 11 and the Schedule to the Act make clear. 

The point has been emphasised by Bob Neill in a letter to the NFI,  but though the NFI was represented on the panel which drew up this badly informed leaflet, no action to remedy the glaring errors has been taken.  The attitude of the AC is usually that when its employees have been on panels and committees which publish false information it denies all responsibility  even when there is no evidence that its employees have taken any steps to disassociate themselves from the misleading information and permit their names to remain on published documents. 

I refer to a letter from Mr Neill to Eric Ollerenshaw MP, reference /BN/02/1632/10.

Unless radical improvements are made in the expertise and performance of this body, I for one feel it is not to be trusted with personal information relating to hundreds of thousands of individuals.  

3   The changing doctrines of the Audit Commission data analytics team

The explanatory notes to the draft Bill  appear to be largely copied verbatim from the notes for the amendments to the Audit Commission Act introduced via the Serious Crime Act.  

They are misleading and on that basis have caused a great deal of confusion and possibly some injustice.  

The notes refer to 'potential fraud cases' being referred back for investigation and state that 'matches should not occur'.   

Faced with complaints from data subjects, the NFI has back pedaled on many of its former assertions about the computing processes it applies to the data it demands. It now hotly denies that cases identified as what it calls 'hits' are potential fraud cases.  Indeed, if you look at its web site, you will see that it has altered its third layer fair processing notification so that it no longer complies with the model in the (non compulsory) code of data matching practice.  Whereas it used to say 'where a match is found it indicates that there is an inconsistency requiring investigation' it now says 'where a match is found it indicates that there 'may be an inconsistent'.  

This is in line with a new doctrine developed after the passing of the Serious Crime Act which asserts that because the Act permits any data matching whose purpose is to assist in the prevention and detection of fraud, any sort of computer processing which assists in those purposes is legal under the Act and may be carried out even if the algorithms are not designed to identify actual inconsistencies and discrepancies.  

The explanatory notes appear to reflect the information which was put to Parliament at the time the Serious Crime Act was passed.  Parliament was repeatedly told that 'data matching' used by the NFI was of a sort that highlighted inconsistencies when in law the situations apparently existing would be unlawful and that this was enough to give rise to a suspicion of fraud.   In response to members' concerns that innocent people could be identified as 'matches' when it was simply that the data was wrong eg two identical NI numbers, mistaken addresses, or two people with the same or similar names being confused, provision was made for a code of data matching practice to be laid before Parliament.  That Code contains a statement that where a match is found it indicates that there may be an inconsistency, and that provision has been used by the NFI to argue that there is no requirement at all that matches must indicate that 'something which should not occur has occurred .  I refer you to a letter from NFI junior solicitor Nagina Akram dated 13/11/2009:

"You have stated that in a data matching exercise, ‘each match should indicate that something that should not occur has occurred’. You have also stated that every individual match must demonstrate fraud for the match to be a lawful use of personal data (NB I did not state this: I stated that each match should provide some reason to suspect fraud, a position which was explicitly put to Parliament in support of the original legislation and which the present code entirely upholds as it states that participants should investigate using usual procedures for the investigation of fraud and error and that no assumption should be made about whether the match arises from fraud or error unless there has been an investigation). We disagree with both these propositions, for the following reasons  .....   Instead an individual match indicates that there is a potential inconsistency that may require investigation by participating bodies.'

The NFI has also said, same reference:

“There is no requirement for each individual match identified during a matching exercise to indicate potential fraud. Instead, the overall matching exercise should, and does, assist in the prevention and detection of fraud.”

I emphasize that this is the view of a junior solicitor at the NFI: to the best  of my knowledge this line has not been run past any counsel at any time, and it may even have been repudiated by others within the NFI: they are running down now and it is not always easy to get any sense out of them, if ever it was.  But there is clearly a contradiction between the view of the government as evidence by the explanatory notes to the draft Bill and the practices of the NFI as evidenced by its response here. 

Nobody at the Audit Commission has chosen to explain why a 'potential inconsistency' should be, in the words of the code, investigated by participants using their usual processes for the investigation of fraud and error.  For a 'potential inconsistency' provides no evidence of fraud or error.

To give one clear example, one set of 'hits' produced for participant investigation is a list of people in receipt of a 25% discount on the assumption that the same rate will apply on every day of the coming year and where the electoral register includes a 17 year old.  I hope I do not need to point out that a 17 year old voter cannot possibly affect entitlement to a 25% discount, as only adults count as residents (and not all eligible voters are 'residents' as per Section 6 of the Local Government Finance Act.  Why should a council or anybody else investigate these families using their usual procedures for the investigation of fraud or error?  The idea is completely inappropriate.

What the NFI actually does is use computer analytics (not 'data matching' as this was explained to Parliament) to draw up sets of people which it believes on a priori grounds will include some frauds and expects councils to work through these until they find some actual frauds, even though at the outset nothing irregular or improper has been found.  In respect of its rationale, Bob Neill took the step of writing to it to state that in his opinion every time the 'primary' so-called SDP match is mentioned it should be made clear that it does not show lack of entitlement, it does not show failure to declare changes required by law to be notified to the CT department, it does not show maladministration by the participant council.  Nor does it show that the electoral register is incorrect.  

In my own case, I am a widow with one daughter. While she was an undergraduate at XXXX  she asked several times if I would allow her to register to vote here as well as at her university, or main, residence.  Having been warned about the NFI, I had to refuse to let her, which caused some personal bad feeling and distress, and interfered with my uses of my home and my personal life as well as with her right to register to vote.  ....  I was not prepared to be believed, on the basis of unlawful 'guidance' produced by the Audit Commission in its Audit Guide relating to this exercise of making two contradictory claims at the same time and to be subjected to a fraud investigation on that basis. 

To conclude, if what the explanatory notes say is what the government means, it should be in the statute law: if the government intends to legalise and give itself powers to indicate on the basis of statistical reasoning that people are 'potential frauds' even though there is no evidence of any inconsistency then it should take the precaution of putting that clearly into the statute law as at present there is much confusion. Indeed, some people believe that NFI data matching is legal only to the extent that each match does produce prima facie evidence of fraud ie evidence that could reasonably be put in front of a criminal court as evidence of a false or  misleading statement or failure to provide information required by law.  The NFI SPD matches produce no evidence of any irregularity whatsoever, which is why some people persist in pretending - however much Mr Bob Neill explains the situation to them - that they do.

I do not know who produced the figures, but they are grossly inflated. 

The NFI always quotes figures for SDPs incorrectly claimed or awarded which include a very large numbers where there was always full entitlement and the 'incorrectness' is alleged by the NFI and hotly denied by councils and data subjects.  They do this by using special 'codes' and recording changes in these 'codes' as indicating that there was an error, a procedure with no basis whatsoever in council tax discount law.  

In all honesty the NFI has no idea how much revenue is lost to SPD fraud, or how many households are getting SPD when second adult rebate would be the appropriate thing for them and so on.  And it doesn't care about this one jot. Nor does it have any idea about the numbers of abortive investigations, which are so high that some councils have decided and minuted the decision that the exercise is not cost effective and efficient. 

The explanatory notes state that the draft Bill contains a definition of data matching.  It does not: it includes a vague statement about what data matching exercises 'involve'.  The NFI uses the term data matching exercises to include applying data analytics to highlight some people as potentially inconsistent cases, collecting comments and remarks made about those people via its web site, recording changes in codes decided upon by the the NFI and subjected to legally dubious interpretations in an Audit Guide it has told Bob Neill is not meant to be a comprehensive guide to the law, and so on.  The code does include something more like a definition, and this ought to be in the law to avoid further confusion.

At the very least, Mr Pickes needs to do some homework on this.

Suggested Amendments

84

(1)  delete ‘exercises’.  Reason:  the word adds nothing but potential ambiguity, especially as the NFI has used the phrase ‘data matching exercise’ broadly to include the follow up investigations in search of actual inconsistencies and so on.   Change ‘them’ to ‘data matching’.

85

(2)  The explanatory notes state that this provides a definition of data matching.  In fact it merely makes a vague statement about what a ‘data matching exercise’ (see comment above) involves.  The part about identifying trends and patterns could be taken as an invitation to engage in precisely the sort of data analytics or data mining which Parliament was previously assured would not take place.  In the spirit of localism, and on the grounds that Mr Pickles’ department receives a great many statistical reports from councils (unlike the Audit Commission) I suggest that this is removed.  For clarity the definitions from the statutory code of data matching should be included here.  Regarding the code’s provision that ‘coincidental matches’ should be eliminated, reflecting Parliamentary concern that a person might end up subjected to a fraud investigation because he was mixed up with somebody with a similar name or NI number, given that the NFI has asserted that ‘coincidental’ means ‘innocent’, once again the statute law needs to embody the intended protection for the innocent.  Clear terminology to describe ‘false matches’ arising from bad typing when entering data, or duplicate NI numbers and so on needs to be introduced and used.

 Suggested wording:

For the purposes of this Part, data matching is the comparison of sets of data to identify discrepancies; where a match is found it indicates that there is an inconsistency requiring investigation.   False matches arising because in an individual case incorrect or flawed data has been uploaded for processing, including, for example, cases where two different addresses or two different individuals have been confused, must be eliminated at the earliest possible opportunity to avoid distress and injustice to data subjects.

(4) Suggested addition:  ‘Data matching may not be used to categorise individuals in whose case no actual inconsistency has been found as “high risk” cases or as “potential inconsistencies”, or to produce any similar report or output which may cause unjustified detriment, damage or distress to those individuals.  The algorithms to be used should be limited to those designed to show, on a case by case basis, that a situation which is irregular or inconsistent in terms of the relevant statutory frameworks exists.

Suggested new (5) 

“a) For each individual exercise or report, the Secretary of State shall publish comprehensive guidance showing i) how the data specification, including any codes required to be attached to the data and any meta data included within the specification, is based upon, or derives from, the law governing the data set in question ii) the nature of the discrepancy, irregularity or inconsistency which the algorithms are designed to identify.  

b) nothing in this part shall be read as imposing on any individual a duty to provide to a participant any information which the relevant legal frameworks do not require to be provided or as imposing upon any relevant authority or best value authority to administer its affairs in particular ways when the law provides for that authority to have discretion to act reasonably as it sees fit.”

Note:  if the NFI has done its job properly such guidance should be available: the present code of practices states that the NFI will publish such guidance.  This provision would allow for checks and balances in case of administrative error or oversight in the design of algorithms.   Some countries which use data matching make a point of publishing such accounts, arguing that it increases accountability and public trust as well as serving to discourage attempts at fraud.    This was one argument for providing fair processing notification, which has turned out to be notification in advance that one is to be falsely suspected of fraud by an unaccountable commission which did not do its research properly in the first place.  Part b makes it clear that Mr Pickles is not attempting via a back door to undermine the localism agenda by imposing particular ways of carrying out ‘discretionary’ duties in a particular manner.   The provision as a whole will also assist Mr Pickles in ensuring that he is not led by the nose by data merchants with an eye on a quick buck and hang the consequences in terms of good governance and the principles of public law and administration, or whose own legal researches have lacked appropriate depth and rigour. 

Re-number (5) as (6)

Voluntary Provision of Data

Add 2(c)

“a disclosure which is a disclosure of inaccurate or misleading information such that the data subject is likely to suffer unwarranted detriment, distress or damage. “

Disclosure of results

Comments:  regarding disclosing the ‘results’ of data matching to auditors: the duties of auditors are to ensure that councils have carried out their financial duties in accordance with the law.  I quote the legal advice given to the NFI by a barrister it consulted: 

He must see whether, on the financial side, the councillors and

their officers have discharged their duties according to law.

Therefore, unless the results of the data processing show that this is not the case, they are not relevant to the auditor.   And, as we have seen, in at least one of the major data analytic exercises run by the Audit Commission, the Under Secretary of State agrees that the output does not show failure to declare changes in circumstances required to be disclosed under CT law, lack of entitlement, or even any maladministration by the council.  One can only hope that Mr Pickles takes the advice of his well informed and qualified Under Secretary of State and reads the relevant sections of the Act, the Administrative Schedule, the Regulations, and the Case law on sole or main residence.  

To give an example, the NFI analyses data derived from CT records together with the electoral register compiled mid way through the tax year to produce lists of ‘hits’ which it hopes councils will investigate, yet an NFI junior solicitor involved in advising about data matching has asserted that the NFI does not believe that the electoral register can be used to decide entitlement to a discount and has never stated that it can be.  Evidence of revenue foregone because a person was claiming a discount to which they appeared not to be entitled would not and could not be decided by referring to the electoral register at any point in time, since in case law the criteria for deciding sole or main reference under the Act for CT purposes cannot be limited to any single test.   What use, therefore, can an auditor legitimately make of the output of the data analytics? 

The ‘results’ of the data processing should only be disclosed therefore when they provide evidence that the council has acted in unlawful ways:  has failed to get in revenue due to it or has made an illegal payment.  It is not appropriate to tell an auditor that large numbers of identifiable people have been identified as ‘potential fraud cases’ using statistically based computer algorithms even though no evidence has been provided of any case where any actual inconsistency, illegality or irregularity has been shown to exist.  And even in this case, it is not necessary to disclose personal information if the auditors could carry out this function in other ways, by, for example, looking at evidence of internal procedures and so on.  To be lawful the use of data needs to be ‘necessary’ ie there is no other way of skinning the cat.   This needs to be made clear here.  Thus, if the Secretary of State decided that a particular data analytic procedure, even though in itself it did not show any actual inconsistency would be a lawful, proportionate and necessary secondary use of personal data as a fraud control tool such that the consent of the individual was not needed,  it would not be necessary for an Auditor to see the ‘results’ of the data analytics to assess whether that fraud control tool had been used: the use of the tool would of necessity have costs in terms of processing, programming and time and would be reflected in the accounts of the council. 

Code of Practice

It is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to be given the powers to write his own laws in this matter.   Any Code should be debated before Parliament with full public debate, and then should have proper force. It should have the force of law.    It is inappropriate for consultation to be limited: a wide range of interest groups including those representing the data subjects concerned, most of whom will not be involved in any improper or fraudulent activity, including, it would appear, a majority of those on some NFI hit lists. 

The Need for Independent Oversight and Rights of Appeal

Finally, Parliament appears to have been under the impression shared by many that in the case where false or inaccurate information was demanded or produced by the NFI the Information Commissioner could or would intervene.  He has stated that he has no powers to make any comment if the complaint involves him commenting upon any financial or legal framework. 

Therefore, I consider that the Act should bestow such a power on the Information Commissioner, possibly by the introduction of a whole new section.  Alternatively, a new Commissioner with responsibility for reviewing the legal accuracy of any assertions or allegations made at the time when data is demanded for matching, uploaded or when reports are produced.  There could also be a formal appeal process for councils and individuals who feel that the uses of data or the ‘data’ demanded or produced is unfair or improper.   This may be an area where the Surveillance Commissioner could have some input.

In some countries formal arrangements exist whereby people who are thrown up as ‘cases’ using data matching have a right to be immediately informed of the fact. This seems entirely fair, and to be a reasonable addition to the fair processing notification, which the NFI has diluted to the extent that the present Code is utterly misleading on this.    It would allow people to take action when they believed that incorrect, unjust and inappropriate interpretations were being put upon their personal data or that prejudicial assertions were being made about them.  An example of this would be the NFI report stating that when a second adult was resident there was no entitlement to a ‘single person discount’.  This is a legal nonsense, an argument based, it would appear, on a false belief that the law contains any such thing as a ‘single person discount’.   Providing for notification would put a break on some of the worst examples of injustice and maladministration which have followed in the wake of at least of the NFI exercises.

There should also be a formal procedure for notifying a person that they have been assumed to be a fraud, as none currently exists and the whole thing is kept secret so they may never know.  This is a breach of natural justice and is wholly unnecessary. 

Such considerations were clearly very low down on the political agenda of the Audit Commission and their partners in the data analytics and data mining industry, but one has to assume that a government with a commitment to civil liberties and privacy will take them into account.