The whole concept of 'real time data matching' may be deeply flawed.
For the words 'real time' imply, obviously, reality.
And though data matching is defined as comparing data sets to see how far they 'match' a 'mismatch' does not necessarily imply any 'real' problem in 'real time or space'.
Yet we know that the NFI is perfectly happy to provide lists of 'hits' which do not 'indicate' inconsistencies, but which only 'indicate' a potential inconsistency. Indeed, the data itself does not 'indicate' anything: it is the person interpreting it who does the 'indicating'.
It also produces lists of hits where the comparison is 'apparent' rather than 'real' as in the case of people who 'appear' to be in an inconsistent situation only to those who incorrectly understand council tax IT systems.
So 'real time' data matching seems likely to lead to yet more confusion and misunderstanding, especially if, as the signs suggest, they are still attempting to fit the square peg of the full electoral register into the round hole of IT systems used to administer CT discounts.
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Sunday, 18 March 2012
Discrepancies. Could these possibly be explained by stupidity or is there another, more likely explanation?
Audit Commission:
It is not clear where or in what context you say auditors have claimed to be checking
claims for single person discount.
Me:
Well now I have your secret guidelines, I can say that the context in which auditors have made that claim is in your hitherto secret Audit Guidelines, where it says this: This match addresses where the householder is claiming a council tax single person discount on the basis that they live alone yet the electoral register suggests that there is more than one person in the household aged 18 or over.
Audit Commission
To date, the Commission’s data matching exercises have only included those individuals
that an authority believes are entitled to the discount on the first basis, i.e. they are the
sole occupant of a property.
Me: If the authority is competent and law abiding, this is not true. This may be true in some cases, and the authorities in question (including Hillingdon, for example) may have believed this, but if so then the authorities were not administering the discount correctly, and they failed to obey the law as later spelled out to the NFI by Leah Griffiths. People have been subjected to criticism and what is basically defamatory comment by the NFI because it failed to grasp the basics of council tax discount law.
It is not clear where or in what context you say auditors have claimed to be checking
claims for single person discount.
Me:
Well now I have your secret guidelines, I can say that the context in which auditors have made that claim is in your hitherto secret Audit Guidelines, where it says this: This match addresses where the householder is claiming a council tax single person discount on the basis that they live alone yet the electoral register suggests that there is more than one person in the household aged 18 or over.
Audit Commission
To date, the Commission’s data matching exercises have only included those individuals
that an authority believes are entitled to the discount on the first basis, i.e. they are the
sole occupant of a property.
Me: If the authority is competent and law abiding, this is not true. This may be true in some cases, and the authorities in question (including Hillingdon, for example) may have believed this, but if so then the authorities were not administering the discount correctly, and they failed to obey the law as later spelled out to the NFI by Leah Griffiths. People have been subjected to criticism and what is basically defamatory comment by the NFI because it failed to grasp the basics of council tax discount law.
For once the Audit Commission got it right
To Roger Hamilton CC Nagina Akram
Correspondence received by the complaints unit at the Commission has raised a number of questions as to how entitlement to a council tax discount on the basis of being the only resident who does not fall to be disregarded for the purposes of the discount (which we shall call single person discount) works....
Section 10 sets out how the basic amount of council tax payable by a person
who is liable to pay council tax in respect of a chargeable dwelling is to be
calculated. Section 11(1) then states:-
“(1) The amount of council tax payable in respect of any chargeable dwelling
and any day shall be subject to a discount equal to the appropriate
percentage of that amount if on that day-
(a) there is only one resident of the dwelling and he does not fall to be
disregarded for the purposes of the discount; or
(b) there are two or more residents of the dwelling and each of them
except one falls to be disregarded for those purposes.”.
Regulation 14 provides that before making any calculation for the purposes of
Part V of the Regulations of the chargeable amount in respect of any dwelling
in its area, an authority shall take reasonable steps to ascertain whether that
amount is subject to a discount, and if so, the amount of that discount.
Regulation 15 provides that where having taken those reasonable steps ... an authority has reason to believe that the chargeable amount for the financial year concerned is subject to a discount of a particular amount, it shall assume, in making the calculation of the
chargeable amount, that the chargeable amount is subject to a discount of
that amount.
Regulation 16 goes on to provide that where a person-
(a) has been informed in accordance with any provision of demand notice
regulations [as to which see paragraph 12 below] of an assumption as
to discount made in his case; and
(b) at any time before the end of the financial year following the financial
year in respect of which the assumption is made has reason to believe
that the chargeable amount is not in fact subject to any discount, or is
subject to a discount of a smaller amount,
he shall, within the period of 21 days beginning on the day on which he first
has reason so to believe, notify the authority in writing of his belief.
A demand notice is a written notice that an authority must serve for each
financial year on every person liable to pay council tax under regulation 18, in
accordance with regulations 19-21.
Under regulation 20, the demand notice shall require the making of payments of the authority’s estimate of the chargeable amount made, as respects part or whole of the relevant year, on
various assumptions, including in regulation ... 20(3)(f) that
if, by virtue of regulation 15(2), the chargeable amount is assumed to be
subject to a discount on the day the notice is issued, that it will continue to be
subject to the same rate of discount as regards every day after the issue of
the notice.
23. Paragraph 47: Also within this exercise is a “Rising 18s” match which
identifies young people becoming an adult at 18 who live with a council tax
single person discount recipient. This age change could make many
recipients of the single person discount ineligible as they will not then be the
only adult living in the property ... [DN XXXXX XXXXX raised the point that no mention was made of disregards here and I agree that this is less than ideal bearing in mind that many people on turning 18 will be disregarded for the purposes of the discount due to being
I have not looked in detail at the other publications on the NFI section of the
Commission website but am happy to do this and check for inaccuracies if
necessary.
Correspondence received by the complaints unit at the Commission has raised a number of questions as to how entitlement to a council tax discount on the basis of being the only resident who does not fall to be disregarded for the purposes of the discount (which we shall call single person discount) works....
Section 10 sets out how the basic amount of council tax payable by a person
who is liable to pay council tax in respect of a chargeable dwelling is to be
calculated. Section 11(1) then states:-
“(1) The amount of council tax payable in respect of any chargeable dwelling
and any day shall be subject to a discount equal to the appropriate
percentage of that amount if on that day-
(a) there is only one resident of the dwelling and he does not fall to be
disregarded for the purposes of the discount; or
(b) there are two or more residents of the dwelling and each of them
except one falls to be disregarded for those purposes.”.
Regulation 14 provides that before making any calculation for the purposes of
Part V of the Regulations of the chargeable amount in respect of any dwelling
in its area, an authority shall take reasonable steps to ascertain whether that
amount is subject to a discount, and if so, the amount of that discount.
Regulation 15 provides that where having taken those reasonable steps ... an authority has reason to believe that the chargeable amount for the financial year concerned is subject to a discount of a particular amount, it shall assume, in making the calculation of the
chargeable amount, that the chargeable amount is subject to a discount of
that amount.
Regulation 16 goes on to provide that where a person-
(a) has been informed in accordance with any provision of demand notice
regulations [as to which see paragraph 12 below] of an assumption as
to discount made in his case; and
(b) at any time before the end of the financial year following the financial
year in respect of which the assumption is made has reason to believe
that the chargeable amount is not in fact subject to any discount, or is
subject to a discount of a smaller amount,
he shall, within the period of 21 days beginning on the day on which he first
has reason so to believe, notify the authority in writing of his belief.
A demand notice is a written notice that an authority must serve for each
financial year on every person liable to pay council tax under regulation 18, in
accordance with regulations 19-21.
Under regulation 20, the demand notice shall require the making of payments of the authority’s estimate of the chargeable amount made, as respects part or whole of the relevant year, on
various assumptions, including in regulation ... 20(3)(f) that
if, by virtue of regulation 15(2), the chargeable amount is assumed to be
subject to a discount on the day the notice is issued, that it will continue to be
subject to the same rate of discount as regards every day after the issue of
the notice.
XXXXX XXXXX identified paragraphs 42 and 47 of the NFI 2006/07 national
report under the section “Other data matching” as inaccurate. I have looked at
all of section 3 (paragraphs 42-51) and I agree that the content of paragraphs
42 and 47 could more accurately reflect the legislation.
...
23. Paragraph 47: Also within this exercise is a “Rising 18s” match which
identifies young people becoming an adult at 18 who live with a council tax
single person discount recipient. This age change could make many
recipients of the single person discount ineligible as they will not then be the
only adult living in the property ... [DN XXXXX XXXXX raised the point that no mention was made of disregards here and I agree that this is less than ideal bearing in mind that many people on turning 18 will be disregarded for the purposes of the discount due to being
students].
I have not looked in detail at the other publications on the NFI section of the
Commission website but am happy to do this and check for inaccuracies if
necessary.
Thursday, 15 March 2012
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, 22 January 2012
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.
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.
Saturday, 12 November 2011
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:
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)