Audit Commission use of electoral register information

Thank you for this full and helpful response, which shows how a co** up originating with the Audit Commission in England has spread throughout the United Kingdom.

The NFI reports on the 2006/7 pilots of the Section 11 discount all incorrectly report this matching exercise. It appears that the NFI may have been under the false impression that this was 'unambiguous' matching when it was no such thing. Far from it.

I am sorry to have to point out that the Welsh account of this pilot falsely asserts that the matching identified errors/incorrectly awarded discounts when it did not.

The legal opinion you have attached, wherever you obtained it, is based upon the false belief that a comparison between these two data sets provides prima facie evidence of revenue foregone by the council. This incorrectly based opinion from Clive Lewis is gaining a certain notoriety, so often has it been used to support unfair uses and processing of personal information. One supposes that barristers make money whichever way the court cases come out, however.

If you read it you will see that the lawyer was 'instructed' by the NFI that this was the case. It is a pity that he apparently did not take the precaution of checking the Local Government Finance Act to see whether his instructions were correct.

And they are not.

Our understanding is that following complaints the Audit Commission in effect admitted that 'of course' no such unambigous matching is possible. It is a pity that they did not realise that simple and obvious fact before wasting public money on a legal opinion. They are supposed to stop people wasting public money, not set a bad example.

It would appear that Welsh Local Councils have also been thoroughly misled because nobody thought to check whether the Audit Commission had got its facts right.

It would appear to be a case of the blind leading the blind, with the result that very large numbers of innocent taxpayers who have fully complied with all their legal obligations and are wholly entitled to the discount get put on NFI hit lists.

I urge Bridgend Council to write as a matter of urgency both to the Welsh Auditor General and to the Welsh Office of the Information Commissioner to seek further advice.

Here is a link to the law on discounts (an early version but materially correct). If you read it, it is clear that this nonsense about 'sole occupant' discounts is just that - nonsense. And dangerous nonsense at that.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/ukp...

http://www.uk-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si...

Various minor differences exist in respect of Wales, largely due to numbers of 'holiday homes' but the actual basis of the 25% discount is the same in Wales as in England:

Ascertainment of entitlement to discount
14. Before making any calculation for the purposes of Part V of these Regulations of the chargeable amount in respect of any dwelling in its area, a billing authority shall take reasonable steps to ascertain whether that amount is subject to any discount under section 11 of the Act or, in the case of a chargeable dwelling in Wales, that section or section 12 of the Act, and if so, the amount of that discount.
Assumptions as to discount
15.—(1) Where, having taken such steps as are referred to in regulation 14, a billing authority has no reason to believe that the chargeable amount for the financial year concerned is subject to a discount, it shall assume, in making any calculation of the chargeable amount for the purposes of Part V of these Regulations, that the chargeable amount is not subject to any discount.

(2) Where, having taken such steps as are referred to in regulation 14, a billing 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 any such calculation as is mentioned in paragraph (1) above, that the chargeable amount is subject to a discount of that amount.

Correction of discount assumptions
16.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), where a person—
(a) has been informed in accordance with any provision of demand notice regulations 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.

Since this law is on the Internet, and since every demand notice must in effect explain it, it beggars belief that the Audit Commission got it wrong.

Thank you again for your helpful response.