CIPFA has a long record of encouraging maladministration and putting out legally prejudicial and false information.
Cardiff was one of the first Welsh councils that the NFI got on side.
In doing this, it was supported by Audit Wales, which published some grossly inaccurate accounts of the law pertaining to discounts. The person who sent me legally incorrect information from Audit Wales was reported in the press to have left his job because they found porn on his computer. Yucky.
It follows then that the Council is likely to have legally inaccurate and misleading information on its web site, on material produced for taxpayers and on information provided to elected members.
Sure enough, Cardiff lists a number of non existent discounts, including, amusingly, both 'single person discount' and 'disregarded person's discount'. People can, according to Cardiff, 'apply' for either of these.
In 2009 Cardiff agreed to draw up application forms containing misinformation about the legal duty of the taxpayer and to get people to sign these on application. It is not clear that the council realised what it was being asked to do or that it had been correctly briefed on the obligations of the taxpayer.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CGUQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cardiff.gov.uk%2Fobjview.asp%3Fobject_id%3D15542&ei=pynLT_-mB8yo8AOzzbzSDw&usg=AFQjCNGx0tgKgcpHCPBJpF77fVaTOU70Rg&sig2=DFs0uiLiWj9fN9CPChopiA
CIPFA produces a report including an account of Cardiff's treatment of its taxpayers.
CIPFA is doing a pretty good job of spreading confusion and misunderstanding, and supported Hillingdon's original pilot to the point of commending it. Nice to see that CIPFA doesn't let little things like maladministration get in the way of important matters like falsely suspecting people of fraud because they can't get the meta data right. It's that word 'but' which implies some contradition again. The situation is perfectly legal and proper. It is misrepresentation to state that those involved 'appeared' to be claiming a 'discount' which does not exist. It is also interesting that CIPFA uses language to cast a cloud over the taxpayer, slinging mud where no actual evidence exists. Over 2,500 residents of Cardiff were affected. This account also refers to 'changes that might affect their entitlement'. The law contains no such category. It would appear that either CIPFA or Cardiff or both do not understand Regulation 16
For the original document, see here:
http://www.cipfanetworks.net/fileupload/upload/Session%204%20%20MayJune%202008136200850830.pdf
The match identified those households where the occupant appeared to
be claiming the single person discount but the electoral roll indicated
there was more than one person in the household aged 18 or over.
Some parts of this document appear to have been cut and pasted from NFI documents which have been admitted not to adequately reflect the law. The false assertion that there is no entitlement to this discount if more than one adult is resident appears here. CIPFA is not a government body and is not therefore obliged to provide objective and fair information, but still, given that people will tend to believe what it says, it ought not to get it wrong. And it does this persistently.
It has suggested that this is 'good governance'. Heaven help us!
Sunday, 3 June 2012
potential libel relating to NFI data matching / mangling? CIPFA Advice
This amused me:
Participants should ensure that the data they provide to
the Commission are of a good quality in terms of accuracy
and completeness. Processing of inaccurate data could
mean that the participant is in breach of data protection
or libel laws.
Such as in the case where the Audit Commission falsely alleges that a person is simultaneously making two inconsistent claims, one in respect of the full electoral register and one in respect of entitlement to a discount?
Participants should ensure that the data they provide to
the Commission are of a good quality in terms of accuracy
and completeness. Processing of inaccurate data could
mean that the participant is in breach of data protection
or libel laws.
Such as in the case where the Audit Commission falsely alleges that a person is simultaneously making two inconsistent claims, one in respect of the full electoral register and one in respect of entitlement to a discount?
Meta Data Section 11 25% discounts.
Along with personal data, councils are supposed to send 'codes' to the NFI. In the past, Audit Scotland asked those sending data to include with the personal data explanations of the codes used.
This is were the mistake has crept in.
The NFI does not, and has never, understood the codes attached to data, whether on the computers used by Hillingdon and the rest, or on the uploads provided by councils.
It therefore sends legally false accounts of this to councils, who believe it, and a vicious cycle of false allegations and misunderstanding is created which brings untold misery and suspicion down upon very large numbers of innocent entitled people who have done nothing wrong.
This is were the mistake has crept in.
The NFI does not, and has never, understood the codes attached to data, whether on the computers used by Hillingdon and the rest, or on the uploads provided by councils.
It therefore sends legally false accounts of this to councils, who believe it, and a vicious cycle of false allegations and misunderstanding is created which brings untold misery and suspicion down upon very large numbers of innocent entitled people who have done nothing wrong.
Saturday, 2 June 2012
Experian, the full electoral register, and another example of NFI misinformation
Not content with falsely alleging that the people whose data it feeds into the computers of Synectic Solutions are 'claiming' to be entitled on the basis of Section 11(1)(b), Kevin Boon of the NFI also claimed, in an internal note dated 2006 that in four Lancashire 'Audits' this meta data was compared against 'credit applications'. This is seriously misleading. In fact the algorithms use information derived from 'credit reference' information which includes and may be limited to the full electoral register. No marks again for the NFI.
This irresponsible piece of misinformation mirrors distressing and incorrect assertions made by Lancaster City Council staff to discount recipients at the time. Persons who honestly and correctly stated that there were no other 'credit applications' made from their address were told that they must be the subject of attempted identity fraud and told to contact Experian Ltd to sort it out. Presumably the badly informed council staff simply thought that they were lying. However, Experian would not provide the names of the person believed to be attempting this crime, nor would they pass it on to the police for investigation. They were abusive to callers, to the extent that the Council, following complaints, decided to review the way in which Experian dealt with callers. It should be noted that minors cannot obtain credit, and, therefore, that in the case of a newly adult young person, such as a person still at school, the chance of any credit application having been made is very small.
The fact of the matter appears to be that Experian uses 'credit reference' information, which does include the full electoral register. This is why Experian obtains the full electoral register in the first place, because it was decided that using it to vet credit applications prevented people from falsely claiming to live at an address where they were not actually resident. It is, of course, possible to obtain credit if you are not on the electoral register at the address given on the application, though it may be more difficult and costly.
A complaint was made to the Information Commissioner's Office. An ICO officer visited Experian and confirmed that it was perfectly possible for a 'case' to be thrown up solely on the basis of electoral register information. The fact that a household was flagged up by Experian did not mean that there was a credit application by a second adult. Thus, in the case of a young adult newly turned 18, the suspicion of fraud very probably arose purely on the basis of electoral register information.
NB Unlike the Audit Commission, which hedges and fudges on this question, Lancaster City Council staff were clear that people to whom review letters were sent were suspected of fraud on the basis of a 'discrepancy'.
Therefore, the distress and anxiety caused to residents worried that they were victims of attempted identity theft had been caused by incorrect information provided by Lancaster City Council telephone operatives. It would appear that the Council was so confused that it also provided incorrect information to the NFI, which then compounded the mistake by reporting it as fact in internal meetings.
This example demonstrates that the NFI does not check information before passing it on, and that it does not understand the practices of Experian or of councils which use Experian. One explanation of the reason that the NFI has persistently put out legally false information about this data processing is that it has taken incorrect advice from other bodies and has not troubled itself to check the information independently.
This irresponsible piece of misinformation mirrors distressing and incorrect assertions made by Lancaster City Council staff to discount recipients at the time. Persons who honestly and correctly stated that there were no other 'credit applications' made from their address were told that they must be the subject of attempted identity fraud and told to contact Experian Ltd to sort it out. Presumably the badly informed council staff simply thought that they were lying. However, Experian would not provide the names of the person believed to be attempting this crime, nor would they pass it on to the police for investigation. They were abusive to callers, to the extent that the Council, following complaints, decided to review the way in which Experian dealt with callers. It should be noted that minors cannot obtain credit, and, therefore, that in the case of a newly adult young person, such as a person still at school, the chance of any credit application having been made is very small.
The fact of the matter appears to be that Experian uses 'credit reference' information, which does include the full electoral register. This is why Experian obtains the full electoral register in the first place, because it was decided that using it to vet credit applications prevented people from falsely claiming to live at an address where they were not actually resident. It is, of course, possible to obtain credit if you are not on the electoral register at the address given on the application, though it may be more difficult and costly.
A complaint was made to the Information Commissioner's Office. An ICO officer visited Experian and confirmed that it was perfectly possible for a 'case' to be thrown up solely on the basis of electoral register information. The fact that a household was flagged up by Experian did not mean that there was a credit application by a second adult. Thus, in the case of a young adult newly turned 18, the suspicion of fraud very probably arose purely on the basis of electoral register information.
NB Unlike the Audit Commission, which hedges and fudges on this question, Lancaster City Council staff were clear that people to whom review letters were sent were suspected of fraud on the basis of a 'discrepancy'.
Therefore, the distress and anxiety caused to residents worried that they were victims of attempted identity theft had been caused by incorrect information provided by Lancaster City Council telephone operatives. It would appear that the Council was so confused that it also provided incorrect information to the NFI, which then compounded the mistake by reporting it as fact in internal meetings.
This example demonstrates that the NFI does not check information before passing it on, and that it does not understand the practices of Experian or of councils which use Experian. One explanation of the reason that the NFI has persistently put out legally false information about this data processing is that it has taken incorrect advice from other bodies and has not troubled itself to check the information independently.
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
NFI Audit Guide 'not a legal document' but it does contain guidance that the Audit Commission has previously denied providing on the basis that it is outside its remit
The code of data matching practice says that the Audit Commission will provide guidance on how to interpret the output of data matching exercises. It has denied providing guidance on how to investigate stating that this would be ultra vires. Ms Akram of the Commission has, however, said that there is nothing to prevent the Commission providing initial guidance on the selection of matches for investigation.
When I asked for a copy of this guidance it repeatedly refused on the basis that it provided guidance on how to investigate, and it even argued that since you could not investigate matches until you had interpreted them, then even the interpretation was part of the investigation. My request for guidance on how to 'interpret' the output of the data processing was, on this argument, itself, a request for guidance on 'how to investigate' and not even a redacted version of the document would be produced.
The response of the Commission caused its Independent Complaints Reviewer to comment that it gave rise to an unintended impression of duplicity.
According to the Audit Commission, "the document that Mrs XXXX refers to as a 'secret Audit Guide' deals with the results of the matching of the electoral register against council tax records, to help identify whether residents may be incorrectly receiving the Single Person Discount. It is a practical guide to assist participant authorities in investigating matches and it is not a legal document or a summary of the law relating to council tax discounts. "
This information was provided in a letter to Bob Neill, Under Secretary of State.
And it is clear from the redacted version that I have that the documents do provide guidance on how to investigate, and that they are legally outrageously wrong in the allegations made about taxpayers.
So the Audit Commission was not providing me with the truth when it denied providing guidance on how to investigate. It clearly was being duplicitous.
When I asked for a copy of this guidance it repeatedly refused on the basis that it provided guidance on how to investigate, and it even argued that since you could not investigate matches until you had interpreted them, then even the interpretation was part of the investigation. My request for guidance on how to 'interpret' the output of the data processing was, on this argument, itself, a request for guidance on 'how to investigate' and not even a redacted version of the document would be produced.
The response of the Commission caused its Independent Complaints Reviewer to comment that it gave rise to an unintended impression of duplicity.
According to the Audit Commission, "the document that Mrs XXXX refers to as a 'secret Audit Guide' deals with the results of the matching of the electoral register against council tax records, to help identify whether residents may be incorrectly receiving the Single Person Discount. It is a practical guide to assist participant authorities in investigating matches and it is not a legal document or a summary of the law relating to council tax discounts. "
This information was provided in a letter to Bob Neill, Under Secretary of State.
And it is clear from the redacted version that I have that the documents do provide guidance on how to investigate, and that they are legally outrageously wrong in the allegations made about taxpayers.
So the Audit Commission was not providing me with the truth when it denied providing guidance on how to investigate. It clearly was being duplicitous.
Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Capita and Council Tax and Maladministration in Derbyshire Bolsover, etc.
Capita appears to have been involved in one way or another with a number of councils which, on the face of it, look like they are not obeying the law on council tax properly and which are certainly putting legally false information on their web sites and or their documentation.
By association, this raises questions about the fitness of Capita to take on local government financial and administrative duties.
The provision of clear and accurate guidance to both elected representatives and local taxpayers is a basic requirement of correct public administration. To make it worse, Capita claim to 'capture key policies and procedures' as part of their discount review service. On this basis, it really ought to be able to point out to councils that they are not complying with the law setting out the procedures which must be used: especially Regulation 15 (2) and 20 (3) (f).
This is particularly the case when Capita 'informs councils' that particular people are frauds.
Notify the council of households that are making
fraudulent SPD claims and require notification of
ceasing SPD benefit
NB Council Tax discounts are NOT benefits.
Capita appears to make this judgement that a person is a fraud based on telephone calls and electronic voice analysis, and claims to employ trained fraud investigators. Injustices arising from the reasonable distress of people who are falsely suspected of fraud being taken by a person of machine on the other end of a telephone line as evidence of something suspicious have already hit the pages of local newspapers.
Their web site boasts about an initiative in Derbyshire, involving nine councils, including Erewash, Bolsover and Amber Valley. The web site piece may be found here:
http://www.capita.co.uk/media/pages/CapitahelpsDerbyshirecouncilssave%C2%A325mwithsinglepersondiscountreview.aspx
As you will see, this web site uses the term 'review', a term which does not feature in the law, but which some councils use to describe carrying out the duty arising under Regulation 14 in respect of certain nominated households. Some councils deny that the 'investigation letters' sent out in the course of such exercises are part of a fraud investigation: they claim they are merely trying to find out how much tax the householder pays. There is a lot of double speak: for the same councils deny point blank that they are using the full electoral register to assess entitlement to a discount to Section 11. (It is an offence, broadly speaking, for a council to use any information deriving from that register except for a statutory purpose related to crime prevention and law enforcement, with the general legal opinion apparently being that this means enforcing the criminal law, for otherwise, the provision would be pointless, other duties of the council being to do with enforcing the civil law).
The duty is to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether any discount should apply, and if so the amount of that discount. It applies in respect of every dwelling within the authority, not just in respect of certain individuals. This duty has been described as a duty to make a tax assessment, and on that basis data protection exemptions apply: data used to assess or collect any tax are not protected under DP law from being shared.
Regulation 14 gives councils the choice about how to go about making their decisions, but it is clear that all methods used must be in accordance with the law. Any procedures which are at odds with the law are wrong and could be subject to judicial review or public complaint. In other words, Regulation 14 does not allow any council to ignore Regulation 15 or to rewrite Regulation 16 or to provide to its residents legally false or misleading information.
Capita's web site makes it that Capita believed it had identified people where there 'was a risk' that single person discount was not appropriate, using credit reference information. This means that a 'hit' could arise merely because a person put their oldest child on the electoral register. Only these people were contacted, using a 'review letter'.
It seems clear that Capita suspected that every household to which a review letter was sent might be the site of a serious criminal offence of dishonesty and that this was done, not on the basis of any actual discrepancy but on the basis that there 'was a risk'.
Given what we know about the maladministration and misinformation usually linked with such initiatives, let's check out the web sites of some of these councils, starting with Bolsover.
Does Bolsover mislead its taxpayers? Yes.
At the click of a button we find legally inaccurate information on Bolsover's web site.
Following the award of a discount you must notify us immediately if your situation alters and the circumstances giving rise to a discount change.
NOTE: YOU MUST NOTIFY THE COUNCIL IF THERE IS ANY CHANGE IN YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY AFFECT YOUR ENTITLEMENT TO A DISCOUNT. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN A PENALTY BEING MADE.
The web site also has what looks like a list of 'discounts' ranging from student to under 18s. This last is particularly stupid, as under 18s do not count as residents at all, and so no discount applies. The question does not arise.
Does Derby mislead its taxpayers? Yes.
Does Chesterfield Borough Council mislead its taxpayers? Yes
The CT leaflet for 2012/13 does not contain the required information about the duty under Regulation 16, but this might appear on the financial pages of the demand notice.
However, a general leaflet put out by the Revenues department includes a blanket request to taxpayers to
Tell us as soon as there are any changes in your
circumstances. Delaying could increase the amount you have
to pay towards your rent or Council Tax.
Chesterfield's web site does have false information about the NFI on it, however. It states that where a match is found it indicates that there is an inconsistency. As we now realise, this is an utterly false assertion: one of the main NFI exercises produces lists of people in whose situation there is no inconsistency at all, but where the NFI thinks one might exist.
Does Derbyshire Dales Council mislead its taxpayers? No obvious evidence of this. Some potential good practice examples for others to follow.
This isn't bad, so long as the Council does not invent a 'single person discount' allegedly different from disregard discounts. At least it does not claim that the duty arises in respect of changes that 'might' affect entitlement, a very common false assertion by local councils.
If your bill indicates that a discount has been allowed, you must tell the revenues section within 21 days of any change of circumstances which affects your entitlement. If you fail to do so you may be required to pay a £50 penalty.
To be continued.
By association, this raises questions about the fitness of Capita to take on local government financial and administrative duties.
The provision of clear and accurate guidance to both elected representatives and local taxpayers is a basic requirement of correct public administration. To make it worse, Capita claim to 'capture key policies and procedures' as part of their discount review service. On this basis, it really ought to be able to point out to councils that they are not complying with the law setting out the procedures which must be used: especially Regulation 15 (2) and 20 (3) (f).
This is particularly the case when Capita 'informs councils' that particular people are frauds.
Notify the council of households that are making
fraudulent SPD claims and require notification of
ceasing SPD benefit
NB Council Tax discounts are NOT benefits.
Capita appears to make this judgement that a person is a fraud based on telephone calls and electronic voice analysis, and claims to employ trained fraud investigators. Injustices arising from the reasonable distress of people who are falsely suspected of fraud being taken by a person of machine on the other end of a telephone line as evidence of something suspicious have already hit the pages of local newspapers.
Their web site boasts about an initiative in Derbyshire, involving nine councils, including Erewash, Bolsover and Amber Valley. The web site piece may be found here:
http://www.capita.co.uk/media/pages/CapitahelpsDerbyshirecouncilssave%C2%A325mwithsinglepersondiscountreview.aspx
As you will see, this web site uses the term 'review', a term which does not feature in the law, but which some councils use to describe carrying out the duty arising under Regulation 14 in respect of certain nominated households. Some councils deny that the 'investigation letters' sent out in the course of such exercises are part of a fraud investigation: they claim they are merely trying to find out how much tax the householder pays. There is a lot of double speak: for the same councils deny point blank that they are using the full electoral register to assess entitlement to a discount to Section 11. (It is an offence, broadly speaking, for a council to use any information deriving from that register except for a statutory purpose related to crime prevention and law enforcement, with the general legal opinion apparently being that this means enforcing the criminal law, for otherwise, the provision would be pointless, other duties of the council being to do with enforcing the civil law).
The duty is to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether any discount should apply, and if so the amount of that discount. It applies in respect of every dwelling within the authority, not just in respect of certain individuals. This duty has been described as a duty to make a tax assessment, and on that basis data protection exemptions apply: data used to assess or collect any tax are not protected under DP law from being shared.
Regulation 14 gives councils the choice about how to go about making their decisions, but it is clear that all methods used must be in accordance with the law. Any procedures which are at odds with the law are wrong and could be subject to judicial review or public complaint. In other words, Regulation 14 does not allow any council to ignore Regulation 15 or to rewrite Regulation 16 or to provide to its residents legally false or misleading information.
Capita's web site makes it that Capita believed it had identified people where there 'was a risk' that single person discount was not appropriate, using credit reference information. This means that a 'hit' could arise merely because a person put their oldest child on the electoral register. Only these people were contacted, using a 'review letter'.
It seems clear that Capita suspected that every household to which a review letter was sent might be the site of a serious criminal offence of dishonesty and that this was done, not on the basis of any actual discrepancy but on the basis that there 'was a risk'.
Given what we know about the maladministration and misinformation usually linked with such initiatives, let's check out the web sites of some of these councils, starting with Bolsover.
Does Bolsover mislead its taxpayers? Yes.
At the click of a button we find legally inaccurate information on Bolsover's web site.
Following the award of a discount you must notify us immediately if your situation alters and the circumstances giving rise to a discount change.
The same nonsense appears over and over again. In some cases, including documentation sent to taxpayers, it is accompanied by the threat of a financial penalty.
The web site also has what looks like a list of 'discounts' ranging from student to under 18s. This last is particularly stupid, as under 18s do not count as residents at all, and so no discount applies. The question does not arise.
Does Derby mislead its taxpayers? Yes.
What should I do if am getting a discount but my circumstances have changed?
You must tell us about the changes and we will tell you how it affects your discount.
For example, if you live alone you must tell us if another adult moves in with you.
Does Chesterfield Borough Council mislead its taxpayers? Yes
The CT leaflet for 2012/13 does not contain the required information about the duty under Regulation 16, but this might appear on the financial pages of the demand notice.
However, a general leaflet put out by the Revenues department includes a blanket request to taxpayers to
Tell us as soon as there are any changes in your
circumstances. Delaying could increase the amount you have
to pay towards your rent or Council Tax.
Chesterfield's web site does have false information about the NFI on it, however. It states that where a match is found it indicates that there is an inconsistency. As we now realise, this is an utterly false assertion: one of the main NFI exercises produces lists of people in whose situation there is no inconsistency at all, but where the NFI thinks one might exist.
Does Derbyshire Dales Council mislead its taxpayers? No obvious evidence of this. Some potential good practice examples for others to follow.
This isn't bad, so long as the Council does not invent a 'single person discount' allegedly different from disregard discounts. At least it does not claim that the duty arises in respect of changes that 'might' affect entitlement, a very common false assertion by local councils.
If your bill indicates that a discount has been allowed, you must tell the revenues section within 21 days of any change of circumstances which affects your entitlement. If you fail to do so you may be required to pay a £50 penalty.
To be continued.
Friday, 4 May 2012
Lambeth and Good Practice (Or Not?)
In a briefing note for the SLT Meeting of April 2007, the Audit Commission stated that it would produce guidance on good practice based on the experiences of the pilots.
These pilots involved Lambeth, which identified 7,000 cases as 'hits' based on the incorrect assertion that the householder involved 'the SPD applicant has declared there to be nobody over 18 in the household' but the electoral register suggests otherwise. On this basis the exercise was falsely described as 'unambiguous matching'.
Lambeth appears to have contracted out council tax duties to Capita. Once again, we have information suggesting that Capita is closely linked with local government maladministration and misinformation.
Research shows that a number of councils which have done this now have legally false information and guidance about CT discounts.on web sites and other documentation.
Is the practice of Lambeth good or bad? It appears to be consistently and systematically bad.
Document One
Reducing Your Council Tax. A Guide
Bad practice: refers to 'single person discount' and 'disregard discount' as if these were two different discounts. Misleading.
Bad practice: incorrectly informs people as follows:
People under 18 are not counted, but you must tell us when any person living
in the property becomes 18.
Document Two
Reducing Your Council Tax Application Form
Bad practice
Misleadingly refers to two different discounts, a 'single person discount' and a 'disregard discount'.
Bad practice
Falsely informs people that they must inform the council of any change in circumstances that 'may affect' their discount.
The council should accurately inform the taxpayer of the nature of the obligation arising under Regulation 16. It should do this within the demand notice as a result of a clear and explicit instruction, and it should do this at all other times as a general requirement of public administration.
Document Three
Council Tax Guide 2012/2013
Page 8 provides a reasonably indication of the circumstances in which a discount under Section 11 arises, which is required by the law.
On the negative side, the document refers people to the web site where, as we have seen, legally misleading information may be found.
This document does not contain the required information about the obligation arising under Regulation 16. it may be that the council discharges this legal duty on the actual 'bill', but even if it does, the misinformation provided elsewhere may confuse the taxpayer.
These pilots involved Lambeth, which identified 7,000 cases as 'hits' based on the incorrect assertion that the householder involved 'the SPD applicant has declared there to be nobody over 18 in the household' but the electoral register suggests otherwise. On this basis the exercise was falsely described as 'unambiguous matching'.
Lambeth appears to have contracted out council tax duties to Capita. Once again, we have information suggesting that Capita is closely linked with local government maladministration and misinformation.
Research shows that a number of councils which have done this now have legally false information and guidance about CT discounts.on web sites and other documentation.
Is the practice of Lambeth good or bad? It appears to be consistently and systematically bad.
Document One
Reducing Your Council Tax. A Guide
Bad practice: refers to 'single person discount' and 'disregard discount' as if these were two different discounts. Misleading.
Bad practice: incorrectly informs people as follows:
People under 18 are not counted, but you must tell us when any person living
in the property becomes 18.
Document Two
Reducing Your Council Tax Application Form
Bad practice
Misleadingly refers to two different discounts, a 'single person discount' and a 'disregard discount'.
Bad practice
Falsely informs people that they must inform the council of any change in circumstances that 'may affect' their discount.
The council should accurately inform the taxpayer of the nature of the obligation arising under Regulation 16. It should do this within the demand notice as a result of a clear and explicit instruction, and it should do this at all other times as a general requirement of public administration.
Document Three
Council Tax Guide 2012/2013
Page 8 provides a reasonably indication of the circumstances in which a discount under Section 11 arises, which is required by the law.
On the negative side, the document refers people to the web site where, as we have seen, legally misleading information may be found.
This document does not contain the required information about the obligation arising under Regulation 16. it may be that the council discharges this legal duty on the actual 'bill', but even if it does, the misinformation provided elsewhere may confuse the taxpayer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)