London Borough of Havering 2/10

This borough was singled out for praise by the Audit Commission in its latest 'Protecting the Public Purse'.

This suggests, of course, that it will not be administering council tax discounts in accordance with council tax law.  For the Audit Commission appears to be actively encouraging maladministration, not least via its own secure web site, which contains a great deal of misleading and inaccurate nonsense.

Havering calls the Section 11 discount an SRD - Single Resident Discount.

The web site does not contain the clear information required to be provided relating to the duties of the taxpayer in receipt of a discount, and nor does it inform the taxpayer clearly of the assumptions on the basis of which the appropriate amount has been deducted from their bill.

The expected nonsense about informing of changes in circumstances may be found in a letter on Havering's web site in PDF format.

Here is an extract:

Dear

Council Tax Discount - Single Resident

I understand that you live at the above address and are liable for Council Tax. If you are the only person, over the age of 18, living at your property, you may be entitled to discount of 25% of the charge.

Before I can reduce your bill, I need to have written confirmation that you live alone. Could you please complete the attached declaration and return it to me, along with this letter in the envelope provided.

It will be necessary for me to review the situation in the future, but you should let me know if your circumstances change in the meantime.

If you need any help or advice, please do not hesitate to contact us on the above direct dial line.

Yours sincerely

Baseless and offensive allegations

The allegations made about hundreds of thousands of British residents by the Audit Commission were condemned today as 'baseless and offensive' by campaigners for local government efficiency.

The allegations appear in a hitherto secret 'Audit Guide' produced for investigators working on National Fraud Initiative 'hit lists'.  The Audit Commission demands that councils send it electronic data derived from council tax records and the full electoral register and processes these in order to produce lists of people it wants to see 'investigated' on the basis that they 'might not be entitled to their discount'.

Guidance published on the secure web site of the NFI asserts that the output indicates that the taxpayers is making two inconsistent claims at the same time, one in respect of the electoral register and one in respect of entitlement to a council tax discount.  The same guidance asserts that there is 'no ambiguity' about the reason for entitlement to a discount.

A legal briefing carried out by the Audit Commission's own lawyers in February 2009 in response to complaints about legally inaccurate material published elsewhere by the Commission showed that these allegations were baseless.  Despite this, the Commission has continued to publish legally inaccurate information in secret.  It was only after the secrecy of the guidance was challenged through Freedom of Information procedures that it came into the public domain.

The Audit Commission appears to be claiming that the Audit Commission Act makes what it is doing lawful since it assists in the prevention and detection of crime.  Campaigners point out that the Act includes a rudimentary definition of 'data matching', which is expanded in a statutory code which defines data matching as intended to identify 'inconsistencies'.  Having acknowledged that this exercise does no such thing, the Commission has proposed altering the statutory code rather than altering its behaviour so that it complies with the Code.  In the view of the Audit Commission, the code is optional, and so long as regard has been paid to it, its provision may be regarded as non compulsory.

The Under Secretary of State at the Dept of Communities has written to the Commission asserting a view that each time this exercise in mentioned it should be made clear that the output does not mean there is lack of entitlement to a discount, failure to provide information required by law or even any maladministration by the local council concerned.

It appears that the Commission has no intention of complying with this advice, and that it continues, unaccountable, to go its own sweet way, with badly briefed officers continuing to provide advice at odds with the law but in line with the misunderstandings which have underpinned this exercise from the start.

There is one potential ray of light on the horizon: Audit Commission staff have admitted that the legality of this exercise is still a live issue, pointing to a briefing by a QC paid by the AC and stating that the issues discussed are 'still live'.   This means that even though the Commission is to be abolished, there will be the chance of legal action against whichever body assumes the NFI mantle and against local councils who provide the information when the law does provide windows of opportunity for them to decline on reasonable grounds.

The London Borough of Ealing: The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

The London Borough of Ealing was one of the teachers on a CIPFA course held in Edinburgh earlier this year.

CIPFA, as we know, is currently circulating legally inaccurate guidance to the effect that so long as kept up to date the electoral register is a reasonably good guide as to whether there is entitlement to a 'single person discount' which as we also know simply does not exist.

How do Ealing's council tax practices match up to the legal requirements?

Their web site will be used as a guide.

Does it provide accurate information about the obligation arising under Regulation 16?

No.  It tells people that they should tell the council if a resident turns 18 as this may affect their discount.

It says this:

A sole adult occupier discount will continue for as long as you occupy the property as a sole adult. 

So on the basis of the requirement for councils to provide clear accurate and fair information Ealing falls down.

It does include a list of disregards, but unhelpfully describes the people who fall into a disregard category as 'excluded from assessment'.

The form which people are asked to complete when applying for a non existent 'sole occupancy' discount says, and this is seriously inappropriate,

The information I have given on this form is true and complete. I understand that I have a legal duty to inform the Council Tax office within 21 days if these circumstances change.

(The Council Tax Administration and Enforcement Regulations 1992.)

Not only does this form provide legally inaccurate information but it attributes it to the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement Regulations 1992.

The information leaflet provided by the council is also misleading. It speaks of applying for a discount because you live alone and then mentions applying for 'other discounts' when some residents are disregarded.

It repeats the incorrect information on the web site:


If you have received a discount or exemption
and your circumstances have changed or you
think the reduction is wrong, you must tell
the council tax office immediately.

The leaflet does not contain the information required by law, but it may be that this is provided elsewhere in the letters sent out to discount recipients.

A council whose practices are not in line with the law perhaps ought not to be giving lessons to others on how to administer discounts.

Kensington also taught on the course . Their booklet for 2011 shows no sign of the information required by law (though of course the council may comply with its obligation in other paperwork sent with the demand notice) and includes misleading information very similar to that put out by Ealing.

It is hardly surprising, perhaps, that CIPFA gets things wrongs when its courses are taught by councils which need at the  very least, some revisions to their practices.

It appears that we have a following.  The Audit Commission has been reading this Blog.

Let us hope that it decides to modify its Audit Guides so that they accurately reflect council tax discount law and electoral law as a result.  Perhaps signing them before they edit them would help?

Stranger things have happened.

And they don't seem to understand the electoral register either

There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that in cases arising from NFI council tax data mismatching, where it has been assumed that for council tax purposes a particular address is not the residence of an individual who appears on the electoral register then they are not entitled to be on the electoral register either.  A typical example would be 'the information was passed to the electoral registration officer to update their records'.  


Well excuse me, but there is nothing to suggest that the electoral registration  records are wrong.  


So not just one set of laws misunderstood but two sets. 


And yet more interference with the right to vote.  


If you ARE entitled to a discount then there MUST be something wrong with electoral registration. You MUST be doing something wrong, we are certain of that, and will invent potential wrongdoing almost without limit because you are one of those people we regard as suspects from the start. This is the general line of thinking, it seems. 


Here is what the CAB has to say on the topic of registering to vote:  


Your position if you have more than one home is complex.  Your rights to be included on the register and vote in a particular constituency depend on your circumstances. It will be necessary to consult the electoral registration officer (chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland) in this situation. It is illegal to vote twice in an election.

You can be entered on more than one electoral register if you are resident in more than one constituency. For example, if you are a student you may be registered at one address by your parent/guardian and may also register yourself at your college/university town if you are living away from home.

However, in some situations, you may be prevented by the electoral registration officer (chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland) from registering in two places. For example, if you have a holiday home but spend only a few days there each year, you may not be considered to be 'resident' there. However, if you spend most weekends there, the registration officer (chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland) may well consider you are eligible to be included in the register. If you wish to appeal against a decision to exclude you from the register, you should follow the correct procedure (see under heading How is the electoral role register compiled).

Although it is not illegal to be registered in more than one place, it is illegal to vote twice in an election. For example, in a general election, you may choose which constituency to vote in on polling day.

Audit Commission: Go, for God's sake, Go.

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=14645

data matching council tax discount claimants awarded reviews

Here is an invitation to tender in which even at this point the basis of the discount is incorrectly stated.


The implication appears to be that 'genuine' claimants really do live alone.  The tell-tale use of the word 'awarded' supports the view that this might be a case of council maladministration, a case of a council which believes that it should have or has in law 'awarded' something which literally is a 'single person discount' and that what is being 'verified' is a set of 'claims' to be living alone.


One could check this suspicion by looking at the web sites of the councils in question, but the announcement is anonymous.  


A similar tender was put out by East Sussex Councils, working together in a procurement hub.  Eastbourne Borough Council and Wealdon District Council are named in connection with this initiative.


It comes to something when even the requests for tender include prejudicial and misleading material. 


This way of looking at discounts was first, to the best of my knowledge, advanced by Experian Ltd.  The use of words like 'verify' - in the sense of 'check' implies that this is straightforward matching.  Terms like 'awarded' and 'claim' which do not apply to the discount and are misleading serve rhetorical functions, perhaps, but muddy the waters. 


The councils are seeking to review all records where a council tax single person discount (SPD) is currently awarded in order to either reaffirm the entitlement for genuine claimants or highlight and address any potentially incorrect claims and remove the discount where appropriate. The councils are looking to engage a third party supplier to carry out this review using sophisticated data matching techniques and appropriate follow up actions.