Make and explore Freedom of Information requestsFollow this request
There are 2 people following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Data Matching - Prevention or Detection of Crime
To Audit Commission by R.J. Taylor 29 March 2009
False Positives in NFI Hit Lists and council policy relating to these
To Bexley Borough Council by K Hodgkinson 12 October 2010
Audit Commission Data Mangling
To Ministry of Justice by K Hodgkinson 27 November 2009
Data Matching involving electoral register and council tax 'data'
To Audit Scotland by K Hodgkinson 25 October 2009
Risk based approaches to fraud management - electoral register
To Audit Commission by K Hodgkinson 21 October 2009
Audit Commission use of electoral register information
To Bridgend Council by K Hodgkinson 11 November 2009
Audit Commission Campaign to obtain copies of full electoral register in order to label large numbers of electors receiving a single person discount as 'high risk fraud cases' on the spurious grounds that by matching it with council tax data sets it can tell when people are not entitled to a Section 11 discount of 25% or that at some point months or years before the electoral register in question was compiled electors had made false claims about who lived at their address
To Electoral Commission by K Hodgkinson 21 October 2009
Plans to extend unfair Audit Commission 'hit lists' of people unfairly labelled as not entitled/liars/frauds who are wrongly alleged to be 'incorrectly receiving' a 25% council tax discount when the vast majority of people on these lists are fully entitled into Scotland
To Information Commissioner’s Office by K Hodgkinson 8 November 2009
National Fraud Initiative Data Mangling
To Norwich City Council by K Hodgkinson 30 January 2011
Supply of Data to the Audit Commission
R.J. Taylor made this Freedom of Information request to Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council
The request was partially successful.
From: R.J. Taylor
29 March 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please supply me with a list summarising all data supplied to the
Audit Commission since 1 December 2007 along with the legal basis
for supplying that information.
For example (and not exhaustively):
Audited Accounts - Section 2 Audit Commission Act 1998
Electoral Roll....
Yours faithfully,
Mr R.J. Taylor
From: Hobbs, Peter (Strategic Services - Solihull MBC)
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council
30 March 2009
Dear Mr Taylor
Freedom of Information Request No. 1344
I refer to your email dated 29 March 2009. For your information your
email was received by this office on the 30 March 2009.
It is noted that you are requesting the following information:-
1. A list summarising all data supplied to the Audit Commission since
1 December 2007 along with the legal basis for supplying that information.
For example (and not exhaustively): Audited Accounts - Section 2 Audit
Commission Act 1998 Electoral Roll....
We are dealing with your request under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. Subject to any exemptions under the Act we aim to
reply in line with the statutory deadline of 27 April 2009.
There may be a fee payable for some information. If so, any fee must be
paid before the information can be released and the 20 working day time
limit for responding will be suspended until we receive the payment. If
this is the case with your request we will let you know.
Further advice on the Freedom of Information Act is available from the
Information Commissioner, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire
SK9 5AF, telephone: 01625 545 700, website:
[1]http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Yours sincerely
Peter Hobbs
Corporate Information Governance Officer
Solihull MBC - Commissioning Division
( 0121 704 8299
E* [2][email address]
show quoted sections
References
Visible links
1. http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/
2. mailto:[email address]
From: Summerill, Joanne (Strategic Services - Solihull MBC)
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council
27 April 2009
FOI Self Assessment February 2008.pdf
584K
Download
View as HTML
FOI Detailed listing of documents provided to Audit Commission in Feb 2008.pdf
102K
Download
View as HTML
FOI On site Inspection list of additional evidence.pdf
53K
Download
View as HTML
External Survey V2.pdf
59K
Download
View as HTML
Complaints FOI leaflet V2.pdf
87K
Download
View as HTML
Dear Mr Taylor
Freedom of Information request - Ref 1344
I am writing further to your request for information, which we received on
30 March 2009.
You asked for a list summarising all data supplied to the Audit Commission
since 1 December 2007 along with the legal basis for supplying that
information.
The Audit Commission carried out a Comprehensive Performance Assessment
(CPA) on the Council in 2008. The division of the Council in which I work
was responsible for supplying information to the Audit Commission.
Therefore we have a list of documents supplied in advance and during the
on-site inspection. Please find these attached, along with the results of
the CPA.
The legal basis is:
"Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) is the means by which the
Audit Commission fulfils its statutory duty under Section 99 of the Local
Government Act 2003 to make an assessment, and report on the performance,
of local authorities. Corporate Assessment is one element in the overall
assessment that leads to a CPA score and category."
We can also confirm that other information has been supplied to the Audit
Commission by other divisions of the Council; however we are not able to
supply a list of this information for the following reason.
Finding, retrieving and preparing information takes employees' time and
consequently there are associated costs. If based upon an hourly rate of
£25 the cost
exceeds the 'appropriate limit' then the Council can refuse to fulfil the
request. For local authorities the 'appropriate limit' is set at £450.
Both of these figures are
determined by the government.
We estimate that to identify and list all data that was sent by every part
of the Council to the Audit Commission since 1 December 2007 would exceed
this limit.
Therefore we are refusing to continue answering the request. In doing so
the Council is relying upon section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 which provides an exemption in so far as the Council is not
obliged to comply with a request for information if the Council estimates
that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate
limit.
However if you are able to narrow down your request we may be able to deal
with a revised request. For example if you could specify a particular
type of data that you are interested in we may be able to identify if this
has been supplied to the Audit Commission.
I hope that the information that I have provided is to your satisfaction.
You are free to use any information supplied for your own use, including
for non-commercial research purposes. Information may also be used for
the purposes of news reporting. However, any other type of re-use, for
example, by publishing the information or issuing copies to the public
will require the permission of Solihull MBC as the copyright owner.
If you are unhappy with the service that you have received in relation to
your request and wish to make a complaint or request a review of our
decision you should write to Andrew Shipway, Corporate Information
Governance Manager, PO Box 18, Council House, Solihull, West Midlands B91
9QS or email [1][Solihull Borough Council request email] by 26 May 2009. I enclose a copy
of the Complaints and Appeals procedure that gives further details.
If you are not content with the outcome of your review or complaint, you
may apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) for a
decision. Generally the ICO cannot make a decision until you have
exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the Council. The
Information Commissioner can be contacted at Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, telephone: 01625 545 700, website:
[2]http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Yours sincerely
Joanne Summerill
Information Governance Assistant
Commissioning Division
Tel: 0121 704 6169
Email [3][email address]
Website: [4]http://www.solihull.gov.uk
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[Solihull Borough Council request email]
2. http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/
3. mailto:[email address]
4. http://www.solihull.gov.uk/
From: R.J. Taylor
27 April 2009
Dear Ms Summerhill,
Thank you for this comprehensive list of documents supplied. Can I
therefore assumes that, as the Electoral Roll has not been listed,
that SMBC has not supplied the roll to the Audit Commission for the
purposes of data matching?
Yours sincerely,
R.J. Taylor
From: Summerill, Joanne (Strategic Services - Solihull MBC)
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council
28 April 2009
Dear Mr Taylor
Thank you for your email below. In answer to your question I cannot
confirm that the Electoral Roll has not been supplied to the Audit
Commission because it does not appear in the list provided. This list
only included documents that we have identified as supplied to the Audit
Commission for the CPA. Other documents may have been provided by other
divisions of the council for other purposes. We will need to look into
this matter further to confirm if the Electoral Roll was supplied by
another division to the Audit Commission for the purposes of data matching
or not. Once we have the answer we will let you know.
I hope this clarifies things for you.
Yours sincerely
Joanne Summerill
Information Governance Assistant
Commissioning Division
Tel: 0121 704 6169
Email [1][email address]
Website: [2]http://www.solihull.gov.uk
show quoted sections
K Hodgkinson left an annotation ( 5 April 2011)
Of course I cannot be sure what date they submitted the register.
This is an example of unsatisfactory and misleading information from the Borough's web site:
Information Amnesty!
Review of Single Person Council Tax reduction
Have you been claiming the Single Occupancy Council Tax Discount?
Have your circumstances changed and you now have a second adult living with you?
If so, we are urging you to let us know as we are about to start a review of the 29,000 households in the borough currently claiming the 25 per cent reduction.
Let us know immediately as we are using new data searching technology to review households claiming the discount and we will be able to identify those households claiming where they shouldn't.
If you let us know now you will only have to pay us any back dated amounts that might be owing. We can help provide a re-payment plan for your circumstances if it’s appropriate.
If you do not tell us about a second adult living with you and you continue to claim the single occupancy discount after January 1 2009 you may be fined up to £280 and prosecuted under the Theft Act 1968.
Don’t let it get that far, tell us now so we can update your records.
Probably this will be an Experian exercise. Such warnings appear to be part of the Experian 'experience'. Typically they serve propaganda purposes by spreading false information about the significance of the comparisons, thus making life several times more difficult for the innocent people caught up in these messes
They call this transformational government: it transforms a lot of people into people who on the basis of experience disregard more or less anything their local council says. This is 'localism', as I understand it.
However the Audit Commission regards Solihill as a shining beacon. It is not certain whether the lack of regard for its duty to provide accurate and fair information to local electors is something which the Audit Commission explicitly approves of but it most certainly has in many ways led the way on this approach to democratic relationships and uses of the central document of democracy the register itself.
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
K Hodgkinson left an annotation ( 5 April 2011)
The Audit Commission had praised Solihill for good practice despite the fact that it falsely tells the whole world, via its internet site, that something called a 'single person discount' exists which has to be cancelled if a second adult moves in.
If Solihull troubled to ask a competent IRRV qualified person they would know this was nonsense!
So on the last exercise for which it has released data the NFI expected Solihull to investigate over 1700 people. It knows on the basis of past experience that the vast majority of these will be fully entitled and innocent.
If you had a 'review' letter from Solihill and you are in receipt of a council tax 25% discount this means a) that you were suspected of fraud, and b) that the council has been systematically misleading you (albeit perhaps simply because of a mistake) about your legal situation
It doesn't say on the electoral register form that the data is sent to the NFI, but this is because the Home Office gave up on attempts to sort the matter out, stating that the legality of the whole situation was still unclear.
The Audit Commission has in the past cited Section 6 of the Audit Commission Act as enabling it to demand this information but many councils disagreed with it, and moreover feared criminal charges if they did supply the full register.
So the Audit Commission got the Home Office a) legal powers to carry out data matching activities (with the Home Office apparently under a false impression that this match did show some false claim or lack of entitlement) and b) more or less open ended powers to write its own legislation under delegated powers.
If you look on the Audit Commission web site you will find out that it does demand the full electoral register.
Responses on this site to F of I requests to the Electoral Commission and other bodies tell the long story of the battles over this.
One idea would simply be to complain to your council that it supplies the register to the NFI on the grounds that the exercise breaches the statutory code of data matching as it does not identify inconsistencies but a perfectly legal situation. Therefore it is not obliged under law to supply it as it is not used for 'data matching' as that activity is defined and described within the code.
And don't believe anything the NFI says on this subject, and especially its annual report on the 20006/7 run of this exercise as it has had to accept that that could more accurately have reflected the law.
I hope this helps.
Link to this