Audit Commission Data Matching

Link: [1]File-List

16th October 2009

Case Reference Number IRQ0274131

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your correspondence dated 15 October 2009

Your request is being dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.  We will respond by 12 November 2009 which is 20
working days from the day after we received your request.

If you wish to add further information or evidence to your case please
reply to this email, being careful not to amend the information in the
‘subject’ field. This will ensure that the information is added
directly to your case. However, please be aware that this is an automated
process; the information will not be read by a member of our staff until
your case is allocated to a request handler.

Yours sincerely

Iman Elmehdawy

Assistant Internal Compliance Manager

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad7D2A4_files/filelist.xml

Link: [1]File-List

12th November 2009

Case Reference Number IRQ0274131

Dear Mr/Ms Hodgkinson

Further to our acknowledgement dated 16 October 2009, we are now in
position to provide you with a response to your request for information.

On 15 October 2009 you requested the following information:

"Re NFI Data Matching and the Statutory Code of Practice

1 How many complaints have you had that the match between the

electoral register and council tax data sets is in breach of the

statutory Code of Conduct governing data matching?

2 What is your understanding of the significance of this particular

match? ie What does it show or suggest etc?

3 What is your understanding of the Code of Conduct requirement

that when a match is found there is an 'inconsistency'? Does this

mean simply 'difference' or does some discrepancy or contradiction

have to be shown up by the match?

 

4 Similarly, what is your understanding of the requirement for a

match to show 'potential fraud'. Does this mean prima facie 'lack

of entitlement' or is it in your view acceptable for the NFI to

categorise households as 'high risk' fraud cases following a data

processing exercise simply on the basis that experience shows that

some households on a resulting list of will turn out after

investigation not to be entitled and therefore it is entitled to

require that councils investigate everybody on the list until it

finds some fraudulent cases?

5 If possible, could you provide information about any statements

made by the NFI to the Information Commission in respect of this

match.

6 How many complaints have you received about inadequate or

positively misleading 'fair processing' notices involving this

particular match eg ones that misrepresent the legal basis upon

which the amount is deducted or falsely assert people are making

claims to live alone when these are merely unfairly inferred from

the data set sent to the NFI?

7 In your view, what would be the legal position of a counci which

decided to abandon annual council tax canvasses and to rely on

personal information supplied by the NFI after a data matching

exercise with the explicit aim of saving money on the costs of

sending out annual or periodic claim/review forms to taxpayers as

part of its statutory duties to ascertain each year before making

any calculations whether any discount applied?

 

8 In your view, would a council that reported that it had from the

NFI a list of people who were 'claiming to live alone' but where

another person was on the electoral register be a fair statement of

the legal position of those people in view of ths statutory

requirements that the council must deduct the amount on statutory

assumptions explicitly related to rate and amount and not to any

head counts plus disregards?

9 In your view, would a council that reported to elected members

that it had ' a list of fraudulent cases' from the NFI to

investigate be in breach of human rights and data protection laws?

Could I please, please, ask that you avoid using the very ambiguous

and confusing terms 'single person discount' 'single occupancy

discount' which do not exist in law, and refer to the actual

discount under the more appropriate and less potentially confusing

term, a discount under Section 11 LGF Act. (It is not true that

councils ascertain entitlement each year by counting heads and

deducting disregards, or that they must do it this way or that the

bill is based upon assumptions about residence, and when people

fall into the trap of assuming that it is, or that this discount is

a benefit and 'awarded' on the basis of a 'claim' all sorts of

unfortunate consequences follow.) “

Please find below the response to your questions.

    Question 1

How many complaints have you had that the match between the electoral
register and council tax data sets is in breach of the statutory Code of
Conduct governing data matching?

Unfortunately, we are not able to provide you with the information you
have requested under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Section 12 of the FOIA makes clear that a public authority (such as the
Information Commissioner's Office) is not obliged to comply with an FOIA
request if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the
request would exceed the 'appropriate limit'.  The 'appropriate limit'
for the Information Commissioner's Office, as determined in the 'Freedom
of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees)
Regulations 2004' is £450.  We have determined that £450 would equate
to 18 hours work.

 

Whilst the information you have requested does sit within our electronic
system, this system is not set up to easily provide us with the type of
information you have requested.  By and large this is not the sort of
information we would need for our own day to day business purposes. 

The system allows us to search for the cases we have dealt with in a
number of different ways, such as by the unique reference number the case
was given, the name and address of the person who contacted us and the
name of any organisation or individual that has been complained about. 
We can also search for cases on the basis of the broad nature of the
complaint, but we can only search on a limited number of fixed criteria
which are structured around the main sections of the DPA.

 

You have asked for the number of complaints about the match between
electoral register and Council tax. There is no field on our electronic
case management system that we can search to retrieve this data. A search
on data matching brings up more than 400 documents which immediately limit
the search session. A search by year brings back a total of 1580 document.
If we assume it will take us 2 minutes to go through each document this
means that we need around 55 hours to locate and extract the information,
well above the 18 hours.

    

  Question 2

What is your understanding of the significance of this particular match?
i.e. What does it show or suggest etc?

This is a question about our understanding rather than a request for
information we hold. As such we are dealing with it as an enquiry.

During the NFI a number of sets of information from various organisations
are compared or "matched". For example details of compensation claims are
matched to see if one individual has claimed compensation for the same
injury from two or more local authorities.

    

    Question 3

What is your understanding of the Code of Conduct Requirement that when a
match is found there is an 'inconsistency'?

Does this mean simply 'difference' or does some discrepancy or
contradiction have to be shown up by the match?

This is a question about our understanding rather than a request for
information we hold. We are dealing with this question as an enquiry.

The "inconsistency" or "difference" will vary and is likely to depend upon
what a particular match is designed to achieve. In the example of the
compensation claims the match would be likely to show a number of claims
by the same individual for the same injury. If the NFI was seeking to
identify benefit fraud it might highlight details of an employee of a
public authority which also appeared on a list of DWP benefit recipients.

    

    Question 4

Similarly, what is your understanding of the requirement for a match to
show 'potential fraud'?

Does this mean prima facie 'lack of entitlement' or is it in your view
acceptable for the NFI to categorise households as 'high risk' fraud cases
following a data processing exercise simply on the basis that experience
shows that some households on a resulting list of will turn out after
investigation not to be entitled and therefore it is entitled to require
that councils investigate everybody on the list until it finds some
fraudulent cases?

This is a question about our understanding rather than a request for
information we hold. We are dealing with it as an enquiry.

The Audit Commission and other public authorities have a duty to protect
the public purse. This is a legal requirement which means that they must
be diligent in ensuring that public money is not unlawfully claimed and is
not spent in error. All organisations which control public money are
required to have internal systems which enable them to check their records
to ensure that they are free from error as well as to allow them to
investigate suspected fraud. So far as is possible all records should be
checked on an ongoing basis.

The NFI is run every two years as an independent check to assist in this
by allowing public authorities to match the information they hold with
information held by other public authorities. Records highlighted during
the matching process are returned to the public authority concerned which
must then determine whether there is simply an error to be corrected or
whether it is necessary to conduct an investigation into fraud. There is
no assumption that a record highlighted in the NFI match will relate to
possible fraud. There is no requirement under the NFI for public
authorities to investigate any records other than those highlighted in the
match.

    

    Question 5

If possible, could you provide information about any statements made by
the NFI to the Information Commission in respect of this match?

We do not hold information in relation to your request.

The Audit Commission has made no specific statements to the ICO about the
mechanics of any particular match.

    

    Question 6

How many complaints have you received about inadequate or positively
misleading 'fair processing' notices involving this particular match eg
ones that misrepresent the legal basis upon which the amount is deducted
or falsely assert people are making claims to live alone when these are
merely unfairly inferred from the data set sent to the NFI?

Unfortunately, under section 12 (explained above) we are unable to supply
you with the information you requested. Complaints about fair processing
can be recorded on our system under various natures/attributes. A
misleading fair processing notice can be recorded as one of the following:

"           Disclosure of data

"           Fair processing information not provided

"           Obtaining data

"           Right to prevent processing

"           Security

"           Use of data

We have run a search of our electronic system under the categories above
for both central government and local government. This was following an
advice by our casework and advice department about where we can
potentially hold this information. We have determined that the total
number of complaints received about local government bodies under the
categories above is 698. The total number of complaints received about
central government under the same categories is 632.The grand total is
1330 cases.

To search 1330 cases and retrieve relevant information from them it will
take us around 5 minutes per case (may take longer in some cases) .This
will take us above 110 hours, again above the cost limit of 18 hours.

Please find below the number of complaints under each category from both
central and local government that you may find useful. Please note that we
have to search each complaint to ascertain whether it has a link to
misleading fair processing in relation to match between electoral register
and council tax.

"           Disclosure of data: 733 cases

"           Fair processing information not provided: 62 cases

"           Obtaining data: 44

"           Right to prevent processing: 23

"           Security: 420

"           Use of data: 48

    Question 7

In your view, what would be the legal position of a council which decided
to abandon annual council tax canvasses and to rely on personal
information supplied by the NFI after a data matching exercise with the
explicit aim of saving money on the costs of sending out annual or
periodic claim/review forms to taxpayers as part of its statutory duties
to ascertain each year before making any calculations whether any discount
applied?

This is a question about our views rather than a request for information
we hold. As such we are dealing with it as an enquiry.

We cannot comment on this matter because the collection of Council Tax is
governed by legislation relating specifically to local government
finances. We are only able to comment on matters which relate directly to
the Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the
other legislation and regulations within our remit.

 

    Question 8

In your view, would a council that reported that it had from the NFI a
list of people who were 'claiming to live alone' but where another person
was on the electoral register be a fair statement of the legal position of
those people in view of the statutory requirements that the council must
deduct the amount on statutory assumptions explicitly related to rate and
amount and not to any head counts plus disregards?

    

This is a question about our views rather than a request for information
we hold. As such we are dealing with it as an enquiry.

We cannot comment on this matter because the collection of Council Tax is
governed by legislation relating specifically to local government
finances. We are only able to comment on matters which relate directly to
the Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the
other legislation and regulations which we regulate.

    Question 9

In your view, would a council that reported to elected members that it had
' a list of fraudulent cases' from the NFI to investigate be in breach of
human rights and data protection laws?

This is a question about our views rather than a request for information
we hold as such we are dealing with it as an enquiry.

In general if the report only referred to "a list" and did not give
information about the names of individuals or the addresses of the
relevant properties this would be unlikely to be a breach of the Data
Protection Act 1998.

    

    Question 10

Could I please, please, ask that you avoid using the very ambiguous and
confusing terms 'single person discount' 'single occupancy discount' which
do not exist in law, and refer to the actual discount under the more
appropriate and less potentially confusing term, a discount under Section
11 LGF Act. (It is not true that councils ascertain entitlement each year
by counting heads and deducting disregards, or that they must do it this
way or that the bill is based upon assumptions about residence, and when
people fall into the trap of assuming that it is, or that this discount is
a benefit and 'awarded' on the basis of a 'claim' all sorts of unfortunate
consequences follow.)

    

 This is not a question to be answered under FOI as it is not a request
for information we hold. Your views on the issue have been passed to our
data protection development department.

I hope the above information is of assistance to you.

If you are dissatisfied with the response you have received and wish to
request a review of our decision or make a complaint about how your
request has been handled you should write to the Internal Compliance Team
at the address below or e-mail [email address]

Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within 40
working days of receipt by you of this response.  Any such request
received after this time will only be considered at the discretion of the
Commissioner.

 

If having exhausted the review process you are not content that your
request or review has been dealt with correctly, you have a further right
of appeal to this office in our capacity as the statutory complaint
handler under the legislation.  To make such an application, please write
to the Case Reception Team, at the address below or visit the 'Complaints'
section of our website to make a Freedom of Information Act or
Environmental Information Regulations complaint online.

 

A copy of our review procedure is attached.

Yours sincerely,

Iman Elmehdawy

Assistant Internal Compliance Manager

Information Commissioner's Office

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad057C0_files/filelist.xml