Looking across the documents collected together over the years, a gem from the NFI leaps out at me.
Reader, you will know that making a false or misleading statement to gain a financial advantage would be evidence of fraud (but would need mens rea proving of course). Common sense and the training of even a very junior solicitor at the Audit Commission should tell us that what a person is and is not 'claiming' is an important matter.
The point was several times to the NFI that it was false to state that certain 25% discount recipients were 'claiming' to live alone, or 'claiming to be entitled on the basis that they lived alone' and other 'claiming to be the only adult who counted, with all other residents disregarded'.
In a true gem of NFI nonsense, Mrs Akram replied that this point was 'merely pedantic'. You use the word 'claim' she said. Why shouldn't we?
Tuesday, 29 October 2013
council tax discount records are tosh.
Anybody annoyed by being the subject of an SPD or sole occupant or single person discount review might usefully ask the council for a print off of their ICT-based records.
These really complete the picture of the nonsense stated originally by Experian, together with the London Borough of Hillingdon.
Depending upon the ICT system in use, there is a column headed 'allowances'. This heading explains why so many clowns insist on saying that the SPD is 'in payment'. Some clot sees the word 'allowances' on a computer screen and assumes that people are being paid an 'allowance'.
Under this heading the words 'disregard discount' may appear. This explains why so many people think that there is such a thing as a 'disregard discount'. You won't get the code 'disregard discount' and the code 'single' on the same account at the same time.
This explains why the ICT geeks responsible for the original NFI cock up must have been full of glee when somebody put the idea to them that you could 'check' whether a person was entitled to a 'single person discount' by looking at the electoral register.
If the Information Officer at your council is a complete idiot she will tell you that your records do not contain any codes, that they provide details of discounts that you are claiming and that these records are self explanatory.
And I could name at least one council where the Information Officer appears to be a complete idiot.
But that is for another day.
These really complete the picture of the nonsense stated originally by Experian, together with the London Borough of Hillingdon.
Depending upon the ICT system in use, there is a column headed 'allowances'. This heading explains why so many clowns insist on saying that the SPD is 'in payment'. Some clot sees the word 'allowances' on a computer screen and assumes that people are being paid an 'allowance'.
Under this heading the words 'disregard discount' may appear. This explains why so many people think that there is such a thing as a 'disregard discount'. You won't get the code 'disregard discount' and the code 'single' on the same account at the same time.
This explains why the ICT geeks responsible for the original NFI cock up must have been full of glee when somebody put the idea to them that you could 'check' whether a person was entitled to a 'single person discount' by looking at the electoral register.
If the Information Officer at your council is a complete idiot she will tell you that your records do not contain any codes, that they provide details of discounts that you are claiming and that these records are self explanatory.
And I could name at least one council where the Information Officer appears to be a complete idiot.
But that is for another day.
Eastbourne false information on web site
Eastbourne Council really take the biscuit.
They quote this law on a page about 'single person discounts':
The Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Detection of Fraud and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 provide for a collecting authority to impose a penalty of £70 on a person if they fail to give prompt notification of a change of circumstances.
What takes the biscuit about this is that not only has this got nothing to do with the Section 11 25% discount but also it isn't even what the regulations themselves say in the case of council tax reduction schemes.
If you don't believe me, Google them.
The Council Tax Reduction Schemes Regs refer to Council Tax Reduction Schemes and not to discounts of 15% received in accordance with the law.
There is no obligation under any regulation to tell the council if you are not liable to a 'single person discount' which does not exist in law.
If you live in Eastbourne and you are still entitled to your 25% discount, tell them to get lost. Tell them to get their web site right.
Eastbourne have contracted out council tax discount functions to Northgate. One has to wonder to whom they have contracted out editing their web site. They have a duty to ensure that council taxation law is not misrepresented, but they probably sacked all the people who knew anything about it a long time ago and are absolutely powerless to do anything about the appalling illegality of what their contractors are doing.
Northgate claim that they are ascertaining entitlement to discounts. They appear to be making decisions about sole or main residence in ways that are odds with the requirements of the law, and on basis which valuation tribunals regularly throw out. So this is of dubious legality. To make it more annoying, they claim they are 'checking' whether people are entitled to receive a discount which does not exist but which they allege these people are claiming... same old same old
They quote this law on a page about 'single person discounts':
The Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Detection of Fraud and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 provide for a collecting authority to impose a penalty of £70 on a person if they fail to give prompt notification of a change of circumstances.
What takes the biscuit about this is that not only has this got nothing to do with the Section 11 25% discount but also it isn't even what the regulations themselves say in the case of council tax reduction schemes.
If you don't believe me, Google them.
The Council Tax Reduction Schemes Regs refer to Council Tax Reduction Schemes and not to discounts of 15% received in accordance with the law.
There is no obligation under any regulation to tell the council if you are not liable to a 'single person discount' which does not exist in law.
If you live in Eastbourne and you are still entitled to your 25% discount, tell them to get lost. Tell them to get their web site right.
Eastbourne have contracted out council tax discount functions to Northgate. One has to wonder to whom they have contracted out editing their web site. They have a duty to ensure that council taxation law is not misrepresented, but they probably sacked all the people who knew anything about it a long time ago and are absolutely powerless to do anything about the appalling illegality of what their contractors are doing.
Northgate claim that they are ascertaining entitlement to discounts. They appear to be making decisions about sole or main residence in ways that are odds with the requirements of the law, and on basis which valuation tribunals regularly throw out. So this is of dubious legality. To make it more annoying, they claim they are 'checking' whether people are entitled to receive a discount which does not exist but which they allege these people are claiming... same old same old
Sunday, 6 October 2013
Nathan Nash from Wales: potentially worthy of further investigation!
Audit Wales has for a long time being falsely asserting that the legal position of people on the NFI hit lists is that they are claiming to live literally alone.
So young Nathan Nathan is likely to have a long history of being involved with false and misleading information. Just the sort the NFI would love to take on. Really good at implying there is evidence against people when there isn't any. He is, to quote a lovely phrase from the Audit Commission, 'potentially worthy of further investigation'.
You can find more misleading and prejudicial information on Audit Wales' web site and on the web sites of the councils whose practices it praises in the blink of an eye than, well, than a person who expects councils to obey the law and distribute correct information about it would expect.
Conwy is a good example.
Web site, application forms, annual council tax leaflets, all full of junk misinterpreting the legal position.
In two languages. Bless.
So young Nathan Nathan is likely to have a long history of being involved with false and misleading information. Just the sort the NFI would love to take on. Really good at implying there is evidence against people when there isn't any. He is, to quote a lovely phrase from the Audit Commission, 'potentially worthy of further investigation'.
You can find more misleading and prejudicial information on Audit Wales' web site and on the web sites of the councils whose practices it praises in the blink of an eye than, well, than a person who expects councils to obey the law and distribute correct information about it would expect.
Conwy is a good example.
Web site, application forms, annual council tax leaflets, all full of junk misinterpreting the legal position.
If you claim any exemptions, discounts or disability
relief and your circumstances change, you must tell
us within 21 days. If you do not provide this
information, you could be required to pay a penalty
In two languages. Bless.
Friday, 27 September 2013
More Audit Commission incompetence Rob Hammond again
Despite having denied that the NFI is limited to actual inconsistencies, the NFI has once again reverted to pretending that its matches indicate inconsistencies requiring investigation. This despite having emailed participants to ask them to modify the 'privacy notices' they produce.
I don't think it is a coincidence that it is publishing this 'lie' when the government is debating the future of the NFI. I think the truth is a somewhat inconvenient aspect of this whole thing which it would clearly be useful to the Audit Commission to suppress. Perhaps the truth is too 'comprehensive' for its liking and it prefers to be economical with this commodity?
The document is not signed, so we have to blame the bosses: ie the Chair, the Chief Executive, and the 'team, which comprises a list of names I have encountered before, mostly on legally inaccurat/misleading reports and minutes referring to 'unambiguous' matching when the exercise is nothing of the sort.
Darren Shillingdon
Yvonne Addison
Sally Gubbins
Nathan Boon
Robert Hammond (who we know puts out false information about council tax discounts)
and a new one
Nathan Nash.
He studied Geography at Cardiff. Well qualified for the job, then?
I don't think it is a coincidence that it is publishing this 'lie' when the government is debating the future of the NFI. I think the truth is a somewhat inconvenient aspect of this whole thing which it would clearly be useful to the Audit Commission to suppress. Perhaps the truth is too 'comprehensive' for its liking and it prefers to be economical with this commodity?
The document is not signed, so we have to blame the bosses: ie the Chair, the Chief Executive, and the 'team, which comprises a list of names I have encountered before, mostly on legally inaccurat/misleading reports and minutes referring to 'unambiguous' matching when the exercise is nothing of the sort.
Darren Shillingdon
Yvonne Addison
Sally Gubbins
Nathan Boon
Robert Hammond (who we know puts out false information about council tax discounts)
and a new one
Nathan Nash.
He studied Geography at Cardiff. Well qualified for the job, then?
Saturday, 21 September 2013
Hugely amusing: Audit Commission's view on Government position on 'data matching'
The Audit Commission has published a 'Public Briefing' on the Local Audit and Accountability Bill including the data matching provisions.
It mentions the need for transparency and accountability, which, given the misinformation it has provided to the Dept for Communities about its own activities and its tendency to refuse to provide information at the drop of a hat had me laughing out loud. A body which misleads judges about council tax discount law at F of I tribunal directions hearings is on weak ground when calling for accountability, and appears to revel in its own lack of accountability (AKA independence from government perhaps).
The Audit Commission cannot even provide Audit Guides on council taxation law which correctly represent the statute, regulatory and case law on the topic and does not understand the full electoral register which it uses to categorise hundreds of thousands of perfectly innocent people whose situation is fully regular as potential frauds (though it lies about doing this if pressed).
The NFI appears to be proud of 'Protecting the Public Purse' which it has used to disseminate misinformation for years, especially about council tax discounts. It wants something similar to continue and draws people's attention to it in their public briefing. One can see why they want similar stuff to happen in the future, but it will be harder I think for the Cabinet Office to get away with publishing false information about taxpayers that it was for the Commission because it is nearer to accountability, unlike the Audit Commission which appears to be accountable to nobody. Of course, using a public briefing to direct people to a source of misleading and prejudicial information about incorrectly claimed or awarded discounts is a good strategy if you want to mislead the public and electors. I suppose they want to go out in the same way they lived, on a wave of misinformation.
This comments that not all of the Commission's activities arise from data matching powers but some of them arise from the powers of auditors to test systems for fraud and error. These powers were of course those relied upon by the Audit Commission in its incompetent and fallacious arguments for auditors getting access to the full electoral register. It argued (though it now denies this, despite still doing it) that by comparing council tax data sets providing details of discounts being 'claimed' by taxpayers with the full electoral register the auditor could find evidence of error: if the discount was right then the electoral register had to be wrong.
This is the position still maintained by Robert Mauler, who was clearly not able to understand the Audit Commission's own belated legal briefing pointing out that it was nonsense.
Indeed, one reason that the AC went to the trouble of getting the data matching powers put into law was precisely because so many people objected to the uses it was making of the full electoral register, which could lawfully include disregarded adults and also adults whose main residence was not at the discounted address.
When persuading Parliament to give it these powers the Commission persistently and falsely told elected legislators that it used data matching to identify inconsistencies, to the point where Barbara Follett, when Minister, falsely believed that 'by definition' all NFI data matching (barring errors in the data) identified error and maladministration. It is precisely because of the nonsense repeatedly published and spread by the NFI and its regional advisors that so many people came to believe that some people are receiving a 25% discount on the assumption that they literally live alone with no disregarded housemates and that if there is another resident this provides evidence on a case by case basis of fraud (usually alleged falsely to be in the form of an ongoing but legally non existent 'claim').
Subsequently, the NFI began to argue - in effect - that the sort of data mining which Parliament had been so keen to prevent, and which the statutory code of data matching practice was supposed to ensure was the only use by the NFI of personal data was legitimised by the point in the law which said that data matching could be used to assist in the prevention and detection of fraud. So long, the NFI began to argue as the exercise as a whole succeeded in finding some frauds, it did not matter whether or not the computer programmes were designed to identify actual inconsistencies.
I note that the NFI specifically wants additional data mining powers as it mentions fraud risks explicitly. This is the bit that should not be added willy nilly, as being suspected of fraud and investigated for fraud on a 'risk' or statistical basis rather than because there is evidence that you have done something wrong is a horrible experience which far too many people already experience.
The NFI's partners include too many IT experts and people from the murky world of data mining, many of whom have their own financial and profit agendas and limited concern for the privacy of individuals, natural justice or democracy, as evidenced by their continuing publication of misinformation regarding council tax discounts and their relationship to the full electoral register.
They are not an objective, or even, as ample evidence shows, a competent body to comment, not even on matters of local governance and taxation.
It mentions the need for transparency and accountability, which, given the misinformation it has provided to the Dept for Communities about its own activities and its tendency to refuse to provide information at the drop of a hat had me laughing out loud. A body which misleads judges about council tax discount law at F of I tribunal directions hearings is on weak ground when calling for accountability, and appears to revel in its own lack of accountability (AKA independence from government perhaps).
The Audit Commission cannot even provide Audit Guides on council taxation law which correctly represent the statute, regulatory and case law on the topic and does not understand the full electoral register which it uses to categorise hundreds of thousands of perfectly innocent people whose situation is fully regular as potential frauds (though it lies about doing this if pressed).
The NFI appears to be proud of 'Protecting the Public Purse' which it has used to disseminate misinformation for years, especially about council tax discounts. It wants something similar to continue and draws people's attention to it in their public briefing. One can see why they want similar stuff to happen in the future, but it will be harder I think for the Cabinet Office to get away with publishing false information about taxpayers that it was for the Commission because it is nearer to accountability, unlike the Audit Commission which appears to be accountable to nobody. Of course, using a public briefing to direct people to a source of misleading and prejudicial information about incorrectly claimed or awarded discounts is a good strategy if you want to mislead the public and electors. I suppose they want to go out in the same way they lived, on a wave of misinformation.
This comments that not all of the Commission's activities arise from data matching powers but some of them arise from the powers of auditors to test systems for fraud and error. These powers were of course those relied upon by the Audit Commission in its incompetent and fallacious arguments for auditors getting access to the full electoral register. It argued (though it now denies this, despite still doing it) that by comparing council tax data sets providing details of discounts being 'claimed' by taxpayers with the full electoral register the auditor could find evidence of error: if the discount was right then the electoral register had to be wrong.
This is the position still maintained by Robert Mauler, who was clearly not able to understand the Audit Commission's own belated legal briefing pointing out that it was nonsense.
Indeed, one reason that the AC went to the trouble of getting the data matching powers put into law was precisely because so many people objected to the uses it was making of the full electoral register, which could lawfully include disregarded adults and also adults whose main residence was not at the discounted address.
When persuading Parliament to give it these powers the Commission persistently and falsely told elected legislators that it used data matching to identify inconsistencies, to the point where Barbara Follett, when Minister, falsely believed that 'by definition' all NFI data matching (barring errors in the data) identified error and maladministration. It is precisely because of the nonsense repeatedly published and spread by the NFI and its regional advisors that so many people came to believe that some people are receiving a 25% discount on the assumption that they literally live alone with no disregarded housemates and that if there is another resident this provides evidence on a case by case basis of fraud (usually alleged falsely to be in the form of an ongoing but legally non existent 'claim').
Subsequently, the NFI began to argue - in effect - that the sort of data mining which Parliament had been so keen to prevent, and which the statutory code of data matching practice was supposed to ensure was the only use by the NFI of personal data was legitimised by the point in the law which said that data matching could be used to assist in the prevention and detection of fraud. So long, the NFI began to argue as the exercise as a whole succeeded in finding some frauds, it did not matter whether or not the computer programmes were designed to identify actual inconsistencies.
I note that the NFI specifically wants additional data mining powers as it mentions fraud risks explicitly. This is the bit that should not be added willy nilly, as being suspected of fraud and investigated for fraud on a 'risk' or statistical basis rather than because there is evidence that you have done something wrong is a horrible experience which far too many people already experience.
The NFI's partners include too many IT experts and people from the murky world of data mining, many of whom have their own financial and profit agendas and limited concern for the privacy of individuals, natural justice or democracy, as evidenced by their continuing publication of misinformation regarding council tax discounts and their relationship to the full electoral register.
They are not an objective, or even, as ample evidence shows, a competent body to comment, not even on matters of local governance and taxation.
Wednesday, 4 September 2013
Rob Hammond: Writing without thinking
In an astonishingly inaccurate Audit Commission Guide document published on the web site of CIPFA (another organisation with a long history of publishing false information about both council tax discounts and the full electoral register) Robert Hammond states that councils can elect to submit council tax data and electoral register data every year
'to detect council tax discount fraud'.
CIPFA appears to have an active policy of misrepresenting taxation discount law. It has actively misled government agencies about this, even though one of its senior officials knows that what it has published about the law is wrong. He said that behaving like this was 'good governance'. I think there may be a problem in that some accountants know nothing about public law, and it doesn't occur to them that councils must obey the law and have a duty not to misrepresent the law.
Is Mr Hammond a liar, or merely negligent and mistaken producing this utterly misleading presentation? If the Audit Commission were a person, one would have no doubt at all in concluding that s/he is a liar, for no honest person could possibly make so many inaccurate, prejudicial and self-contradictory allegations about their fellow taxpayers, misleading ministers, delegates and the general public while being paid for this out of the 'public purse' which they are supposedly trying to protect. This is not a valid use of public money.
Can councils do as Mr Hammond says?
No they cannot. One reason that it is unlawful to use the electoral register to decide where the sole or main residence of a person is. The NFI (which as we know contradicts itself, with this being just another example) denies that people on its council tax hit lists are even suspected of fraud. It denies ever having thought that one could tell via the electoral register whether there was entitlement to a 25% discount. It tells the Government that all its communications make it clear that the CT - ER output does not indicate failure to provide information required by law, lack of entitlement or even maladministration by the local council. Clearly what it tells the government isn't true (but we knew that anyway). This output provides no evidence of fraud at all, and especially not of dishonest intention on anybody's part. As the NFI knows very well the overwhelming majority of investigations are utterly abortive in terms of finding fraud or error.
And once again this misinformation appears on the web site of CIPFA, a body which gives an increasingly poor impression of itself with every piece of legally false information on this topic it produces.
Public accountants should have a sufficient grasp of public law to avoid publishing statements by public bodies which flout their duties to provide reliable information and their promises to publish more 'comprehensive' guidance on the output from this data analytics exercise in future.
The comparison between the council tax data sets and the full electoral register provides no evidence of fraud whatsoever. I say this with reference to the definition of that crime as laid down in law.
As a public employee (albeit via the Audit Commission) Mr Hammond has a duty to provide reliable information. The councils and others to whom he addresses this abysmal PR presentation have a duty to abide by the regulations governing local government finance.
So much for the promises of the NFI to publish 'more comprehensive' accounts of the output of this exercise. So much also for the assurances given by the NFI to Bob Neill and Brandon Lewis that all their communications about this output make it clear that it does not show lack of entitlement, failure to declare changes required by law or even any maladministration. Clearly these assurances were unreliable. And I should be surprised because .... ?
I do not know whether Robert Hammond has more qualifications for his job than other Roberts employed by the Audit Commission to issue false statements in public, but whatever his qualifications, council tax and electoral law and the requirements of public law as these affect public bodies like his own Commission would appear not to be among them.
Mr Hammond is an NFI 'coordinator'. His job is to advise participants. One would be well advised not to pay any attention to his advice if all of it is of this appalling quality.
'to detect council tax discount fraud'.
CIPFA appears to have an active policy of misrepresenting taxation discount law. It has actively misled government agencies about this, even though one of its senior officials knows that what it has published about the law is wrong. He said that behaving like this was 'good governance'. I think there may be a problem in that some accountants know nothing about public law, and it doesn't occur to them that councils must obey the law and have a duty not to misrepresent the law.
Is Mr Hammond a liar, or merely negligent and mistaken producing this utterly misleading presentation? If the Audit Commission were a person, one would have no doubt at all in concluding that s/he is a liar, for no honest person could possibly make so many inaccurate, prejudicial and self-contradictory allegations about their fellow taxpayers, misleading ministers, delegates and the general public while being paid for this out of the 'public purse' which they are supposedly trying to protect. This is not a valid use of public money.
Can councils do as Mr Hammond says?
No they cannot. One reason that it is unlawful to use the electoral register to decide where the sole or main residence of a person is. The NFI (which as we know contradicts itself, with this being just another example) denies that people on its council tax hit lists are even suspected of fraud. It denies ever having thought that one could tell via the electoral register whether there was entitlement to a 25% discount. It tells the Government that all its communications make it clear that the CT - ER output does not indicate failure to provide information required by law, lack of entitlement or even maladministration by the local council. Clearly what it tells the government isn't true (but we knew that anyway). This output provides no evidence of fraud at all, and especially not of dishonest intention on anybody's part. As the NFI knows very well the overwhelming majority of investigations are utterly abortive in terms of finding fraud or error.
And once again this misinformation appears on the web site of CIPFA, a body which gives an increasingly poor impression of itself with every piece of legally false information on this topic it produces.
Public accountants should have a sufficient grasp of public law to avoid publishing statements by public bodies which flout their duties to provide reliable information and their promises to publish more 'comprehensive' guidance on the output from this data analytics exercise in future.
The comparison between the council tax data sets and the full electoral register provides no evidence of fraud whatsoever. I say this with reference to the definition of that crime as laid down in law.
As a public employee (albeit via the Audit Commission) Mr Hammond has a duty to provide reliable information. The councils and others to whom he addresses this abysmal PR presentation have a duty to abide by the regulations governing local government finance.
So much for the promises of the NFI to publish 'more comprehensive' accounts of the output of this exercise. So much also for the assurances given by the NFI to Bob Neill and Brandon Lewis that all their communications about this output make it clear that it does not show lack of entitlement, failure to declare changes required by law or even any maladministration. Clearly these assurances were unreliable. And I should be surprised because .... ?
I do not know whether Robert Hammond has more qualifications for his job than other Roberts employed by the Audit Commission to issue false statements in public, but whatever his qualifications, council tax and electoral law and the requirements of public law as these affect public bodies like his own Commission would appear not to be among them.
Mr Hammond is an NFI 'coordinator'. His job is to advise participants. One would be well advised not to pay any attention to his advice if all of it is of this appalling quality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)