Address: Telephone:
Website:
110 George Street
0845 146 1010
www.audit-scotland.gov.uk
Edinburgh Email:
EH2 4LH
[Audit Scotland request email]
K
Hodgkinson
17
November
2009
[FOI #21904 email]
Dear Sir or Madam
Freedom of Information request – data matching involving electoral register and council tax data
I refer to your two information requests sent by email on 25 October 2009 about data matching involving the
electoral register and council tax data. Our response is set out below and in the four attachments to this
message. Our response is cross referred to the numbered sections of your initial message but addresses firstly
our response to your second request.
What is inconsistent with what?
Council tax payers are eligible for a Single Persons Discount (SPD) where they are aged 18 or over and are the
only occupant of a household. However they can also apply for this discount if anybody else living at that
address falls into certain categories that allow them not to be counted as ‘other occupants’. These categories,
known as disregards, can be found on page 8 of a Communities and Local Government document at
http://www.local.communities.gov.uk/finance/ctax/ctaxbillguide.pdf
The data matching exercise compares a council tax record with the number of persons on the Electoral Register
(ER) at the same property, taking into account those cases where SPD has been deducted and there is no
disregard attached. Where the matching identifies addresses where the ER suggests that there is more than
one person in the household aged 18 or over a ‘match’ is reported which the relevant council can follow up, as
appropriate.
The follow up of a match may lead the council to conclude that the SPD was correctly deducted, deducted in
error, or that the taxpayer failed to disclose circumstances affecting their entitlement. The action that is taken in
response to the outcome is for the council to decide.
As you identify from our fair processing notice there is no presumption that any match represents fraud or error.
A match identifies a potential inconsistency which must be investigated before any conclusion is drawn and/or
action taken by a council.
In summary, in the case of SPD matches the inconsistency (or to be strictly accurate, the potential
inconsistency), is that the ER suggests that there are two or more persons resident at the property when, at the
same time, an SPD has been allowed.
K
Hodginson
17
November
2009
[FOI #21904 email]
ONE
Audit Scotland’s fair processing notice
The NFI guidelines referred to in our fair processing notice were available at the link provided when we first
published the notice on our web site in June 2008. However, revised guidelines have since been prepared by
the Audit Commission, and for SPD matches, which contain information aimed specifically for council
investigators. These guidelines were transferred, we understand, to the NFI secure website in February 2009.
This website is restricted to authorised council investigators and auditors.
However, I assure you that the explanation of the reasons for the council tax/ER matching provided earlier in
this letter is the same as that contained in current SPD guidelines.
Audit Scotland will need to review its fair processing notice, at the latest before the next NFI cycle, and we will
consider with our colleagues in the Audit Commission how to provide more specific information for the public
about the reasons for data matches.
Please note, nevertheless, that Audit Scotland’s 2008/09 NFI handbook, available at
http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/central/2008/nr_080605_national_fraud_initiative_handbook.pdf
does refer to the collection of council tax and electoral register data; and page 16 of the Audit Commission's
report on the 2006/07 National Fraud Initiative (NFI) available at
http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Downloads/NFI0607report.pdf
contains information about SPD matching and the results of the work.
TWO
The rationale and significance of this type of data matching was identified to Audit Scotland through discussions
with our colleagues in the Audit Commission which had already piloted this work in a number of English
councils. We recall these discussions being similar to the content of the Audit Commission’s 2006/07 national
report (link provided above). It is normal practice for Audit Scotland to extend its data matching in areas where
pilots undertaken elsewhere in the UK have shown that the matching could also be beneficial to Scottish public
bodies. We readily understood the SPD matching and we did not prepare any internal material discussing the
significance and rationale of this match (but see later).
We had an interest in the debate that took place in England about the provision of the ER for data matching
purposes and were regularly updated through discussions with our colleagues in the Audit Commission. Audit
Scotland was of the view from the outset that it was lawful for the ER to be provided in Scotland for these
purposes and we also considered Senior Counsel’s advice provided to the Audit Commission to be persuasive
in Scotland. I have
attached three PDF files to this response being copies of:
a letter that we sent to Scottish Councils on 17 December 2007
the Counsel’s advice referred to above which was enclosed with that letter
further Counsel’s advice to the Audit Commission addressing the arguments that were made by certain
councils in England.
It was ultimately for councils to seek their own advice, if they considered that necessary, before deciding
whether or not to agree to our request to submit the ER for NFI purposes. A further PDF file
attached contains,
in that respect, a copy of a letter that Audit Scotland received from SOLAR (a group representing council legal
officers in Scotland) on 21 March 2008.
We understand that the vast majority of councils in the UK have been sufficiently satisfied to provide the ER for
data matching purposes.
K
Hodginson
17
November
2009
[FOI #21904 email]
THREE
There was no significant difference between the respective English and Scottish legal provisions that governed
this exercise at the time when Audit Scotland embarked on it. I would refer you again to the
attached letter to
Scottish councils dated 17 December 2007 which contrasted the legal provisions in England and Scotland at
that time.
Whilst Audit Scotland continues to request the data for NFI exercises under s100 of the Local Government
(Scotland) Act 1973 (the 1973 Act) the Audit Commission now request data and undertake their matching in
accordance with new provisions in the Serious Crime Act 2007. The equivalent provisions for Scotland are
contained in the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill that is currently being considered by the Scottish
Parliament. Until those powers are enacted, Audit Scotland’s NFI exercise will remain limited in certain respects
compared to the rest of the UK.
Audit Scotland will prepare a new Code of Data Matching Practice, which will be more in line with the Audit
Commission’s current Code, when our new powers are enacted.
Finally, a small minority of Scottish councils have argued that the ER is not a document ‘relating to the accounts’
as specified in the auditors’ powers of access in s100. While we respect this view, we do not agree with it. The
Council Tax Income Account is one of the main financial statements subject to audit, it reflects the amount of
discounts awarded, and the electoral register is an effective source of the number of persons that appear to
reside in a household when testing the validity of an SPD. Please note that this particular debate is not relevant
in England.
I trust that this information addresses your questions.
Yours faithfully
David Beveridge
Senior Manager (Audit Strategy & NFI)
Appendix to Audit Scotland’s FOI response dated 20 November 2009
COPYRIGHT TERMS
Audit Scotland’s information is protected by copyright. However, under the terms of fair dealing, you are allowed to use it for
private and educational purposes and for news reporting. Any other re-use, such as commercial publication, requires
special permission from us.
Audit Scotland may not be the copyright holder for some of the information we provide in response to information requests.
In such cases, you will need to obtain permission from the person or organisation who owns the copyright before you re-use
it.
RIGHT OF REVIEW AND APPEAL
If you are dissatisfied with how we have handled your information request or would like us to reconsider the decision we
made, please write to: Diane McGiffen, Director of Corporate Services, Audit Scotland, 110 George Street, EDINBURGH
EH2 4LH.
If, after that, you are still not satisfied you can ask the Scottish Information Commissioner to review how we dealt with your
request. The Commissioner is independent of Audit Scotland and can decide whether we acted properly and according to
the Freedom of Information Act.
The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: The Scottish Information Commissioner, Kinburn Castle, Doubledykes
Road, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9DS, Tel 01334 464 61
0, email [email address]
