Data Matching involving electoral register and council tax 'data'
The request was successful.
From: K Hodgkinson
Dear Sir or Madam,
Fair processing notices in connection with the National Fraud Audit
are available here
These notices tell people they can find more information on the
reasons for each match here
Therefore, it seems reasonable to expect that one should be able to
download the information from that internet address.
However, it is not accessible via the internet. One is either
redirected to other Audit Commission sites or to a page requiring a
log in which I do not have.
Given that it appears that this information is intended to be
accessible as part of one's right to know about the processing that
will take place using one's data, and that the fair processing
pages of many authorities include a link to this guidance, I
request a copy of that guidance.
Please also provide copies of any internal papers, guidance,
briefings, minutes etc held by Audit Scotland in which the
significance of and rationale for this match are discussed,
including any covering the long standing arguments between the
Audit Commission and some local councils about the use of the
electoral register for such purposes.
Please also provide copies of any internal papers relevant to the
question of whether the law and practice in Scotland differs from
the law in England in respect of this matching exercise: I note
that Scotland has a Code of Data Matching that differs from the
From: K Hodgkinson
Dear Sir or Madam,
Audit Commission Scotland states that where 'matches' are found
they indicate that there is an inconsistency which requires
In the case of 25% council tax discount matches, precisely what is
inconsistent with what?
I would hope that my request would produce an explanation of this,
as no such explanation may be found at present yet the existence of
such an 'inconsistency' would appear to underpin the arguments that
this matching is lawful in each individual case.
I look forward to your kind clarification of this perplexing
From: Dave Beveridge
Dear Sir or Madam
Please find attached a letter (file prefixed 09-11-17) and four other
attachments being our response to your 2 FOI requests dated 25 October
From: K Hodgkinson
Dear Dave Beveridge,
These documents are useful. Thank you very much.
They appear to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Audit
Commission believes that there is some residence based 'sole
occupancy' discount and that one can tell by looking at the
electoral register that a person is not entitled to it. The
barrister who provided an opinion based on this legally incorrect
assertion puts it as follows: 'revenue foregone'. And it is on the
basis that the electoral register can be used to compile hit lists
of cases where revenue has been foregone that the arguments that it
is proper and legal for the Audit Commission to obtain and use the
electoral register for data matching rest.
It would appear that there is no duty on barristers to check
whether the law as stated in their briefs is correct. The question
arises of whether obtaining briefs based on incorrectly stated law
would count as a waste of public money. Such actions would be
especially reprehensible when done by Audit Commissions charged
with ensuring good governance and efficient use of public
In fact, it is not possible to tell from the electoral register
that a person is not entitled to the discount he is claiming.
The Audit Commission has clearly being supplying legally incorrect
assertion to Audit Scotland and to others. Its own pilots, and
indeed, the additional income estimates arising from these, are
based on a series of false assertions, all arising from this basic
It appears that the NFI pilots of this match were undertaken on the
false belief that they were carrying out unambiguous matching - in
which case questions arise about the competence of all those
Getting a barrister to parrot your false beliefs about the basis of
25% discounts may be a good move in political and rhetorical terms.
There is always a risk, however, that an astute taxpayer who has
paid attention to the statutory content of his demand notices will
pick up on the error.
The assertions about this match in the Audit Commission Report for
2006/2007 do not accurately reflect council tax law either.
Briefly, they are nonsense. They incorrectly state the basis on
which the discount is deducted, the significance of the data on the
required data sets and the meaning of the output. In so far as
figures reflect false beliefs about lack of entitlement they may be
Since this match does not provide evidence of an inconsistency, it
is in breach of the Scottish Code of Data Matching, which requires
that particular data processing techniques must be used and that
output must indicate that there is an inconsistency.
You state that you would prefer to describe the output of this data
processing procedure as a 'potential inconsistency'. I agree that
this might be a more accurate account of it. The problem is that
your Code of Practice requires that output should show that there
is an inconsistency. Therefore, you appear to be in effect
admitting the truth, which is that this exercise does not provide a
list of cases in which it is plain that there is prima facie
evidence of lack of entitlement. In that case, the whole house of
cards tumbles down.
I guessed before looking that the lengthy list of legal frameworks
examined by Mr Frith would not include the Local Government Finance
Act. This is a pity, because had Mr Frith looked at Section 79 he
would instantly have realised that what the barrister and Audit
England were saying was false. Mr Frith might have gone on to look
at, for example, the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement
Regulations for Scotland, and have informed himself of the actual
basis of all 25% discounts. Section 79 sets out 25% and 50%
discounts. All of these discounts are deducted from bills on the
basis of a statutory assumption set out in the law, which is an
assumption about entitlement. No council tax discount is ever
awarded on the basis of declarations made by taxpayers, or on the
basis of the information in the council tax data sets which are
compared in this data mismatching mess. This important fact may
have escaped the attention of Audit England and Audit Scotland. It
may be an inconvenient fact, but the Audit Commissions must take
the law as it is, not as they would like it to be.
Your response mentions the duties of taxpayers. However, it would
appear that you have may have misunderstood these. Crucially, it
would be inappropriate to assert that the output from this
processing provides evidence of a failure to carry out any
statutory duty to inform, because it does not.
When the taxpayer gets a bill, it must inform him that such and
such an amount has been deducted from his bill and why this amount
has been deducted from his bill. He must be sent an account of all
the discounts. This information enables him to know which changes
in circumstances he must report to the council and which changes in
circumstances he needs not report to the council. A duty to inform
of changed circumstances only arises when these affect the amount
of the discount.
Your argument that innocent people can protect themselves against
being labelled as 'high risk' cases on hit lists compiled as the
basis for investigations in search of fraud, does not hold.
The answer to the question of what will be done to ensure that
innocent entitled people do not get labelled and stigmatised as
'high risk' fraud cases, using the filters which the Audit
Commission suggests that Councils apply to the set of hit lists
would appear to be nothing.
On the contrary, through its powers to issue adverse reports on
councils that do not investigate these hit lists in search of
inconsistencies and fraud it would appear that Audit Scotland is an
We are in a situation where, ironically, fair processing notices
asserting that cases are only investigated where there 'IS' an
inconsistency are blinding us to the truth about what use is really
being made of the vast amounts of personal information which the
Audit Commission may now access.
It appears that in fact, large numbers of innocent entitled people
are being labelled as 'high risk' cases on statistical grounds.
This stigmatising label in itself becomes personal data, which is
shared widely among participating bodies.
As this exercise rolls out, large numbers of people will find
themselves being subject to 'checks' and 'reviews'- often carried
out by investigators who falsely believe that this out put does
indicate that there is an inconsistency and who have been
incorrectly briefed about council tax law.
They appear to be likely to be informed falsely that the exercise
is permissible under a Code of Data Matching Practice, when, of
course, it is not.
The time has come for Audit Scotland to do more than rely on
incorrect briefings from the Audit Commission and to undertake a
full review, including a full review of all the relevant council
tax law and administrations including billing regulations as these
apply in Scotland, and to obtain its own, independent legal
briefings on these. It would appear on the basis of the information
disclosed here that the NFI has so failed to do this.
Thank you again for this evidence of the Audit Commission's errors.
(1)The amount of council tax payable in respect of a chargeable
dwelling and any day shall be subject to a discount equal to the
appropriate percentage of that amount if on that day—
(a)there is only one resident of the dwelling and he does not fall
to be disregarded for the purposes of discount; or
(b)there are two or more residents of the dwelling and each of them
except one falls to be disregarded for those purposes.
(2)The amount of council tax payable in respect of a chargeable
dwelling and any day shall be subject to a discount equal to twice
the appropriate percentage of that amount if on that day—
(a)F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(b)there are one or more residents of the dwelling and each of them
falls to be disregarded for the purposes of discount.
(3)In this section “the appropriate percentage" means 25 per cent.
or, if the Secretary of State by order so provides in respect of
the financial year in which the day falls, such other percentage as
is specified in the order.
Admin Regs (Scotland)
Ascertainment of entitlement to discount
12. A levying authority shall, before making any calculation for
the purposes of Part V of these Regulations of the chargeable
amount in respect of any dwelling in their area, take reasonable
steps to ascertain whether that amount is subject to any discount
under section 79 of the Act or under that section as read with
paragraph 11 of Schedule 11 to the Act and, if so, the amount of
Assumptions as to discount
13.—(1) Where a levying authority, having taken such steps as are
referred to in regulation 12, have no reason to believe that the
chargeable amount for the financial year concerned is subject to a
discount, they 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 a levying authority, having taken such steps as are
referred to in regulation 12, have reason to believe that the
chargeable amount for the financial year concerned is subject to a
discount of a particular amount, they shall assume, in making any
such calculation as is mentioned in paragraph (1), that the
chargeable amount is subject to a discount of that amount.
Notification of discount assumptions
14.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) to (5), as soon as reasonably
practicable after a levying authority have made such an assumption
as is mentioned in regulation 13(2), they shall by notice inform
the relevant person of the assumption made in his case.
(2) Subject to paragraph (4), a levying authority shall supply with
any such notice a statement—
(a) of the basis on which the authority assumed that the chargeable
amount was or should be subject to a discount; (NB THIS DOES NOT
MEAN RESIDENCE DETAILS OR THE CONTENTS OF COUNCIL TAX DATA BASES)
(b) summarising the contents of regulation 15 and advising the
relevant person that a penalty of £50 may be imposed on him under
paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3 to the Act if he fails to comply with
the obligation contained in that regulation.
Correction of discount assumptions
15.—(1) Subject to paragraph (3), where a person—
(a) has been informed of an assumption under regulation 13(2) 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;(NB NOTHING HERE ABOUT RESIDENCE CIRCUMSTANCES.DUTY ARISES
ONLY IF, IN BRIEF, THE BILL IS NOT HIGH ENOUGH)
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.