False Positives in NFI Hit Lists and council policy relating to these

The request was successful.

Dear Birmingham City Council,

According to the Audit Commission, you were sent a hit list of 10,189 households to investigate in search of people receiving a 25% discount on their council tax bills when they were not entitled to
a 25% discount. The statutory Code of Data Matching Practice States:
“1.2.3 Data matching in the NFI involves comparing sets of data, such as
the payroll or benefits records of a body, against other records held by the
same or another body to see how far they match. This allows potentially
fraudulent claims and payments to be identified. Where no match is
found, the data matching process will have no material impact on those
concerned. Where a match is found, it indicates that there is an
inconsistency that requires further investigation.”

The Audit Commission has explained this exercise as follows:

If there is only 1 adult in a property that person is entitled to a single person discount of 25% off their council tax liability unless they fall into a disregard category (for examples see below)
in which case other discounts and exemptions may apply. In cases where there is another adult(s) in the property and the adult(s) meet certain conditions (e.g. being severely mentally impaired,
certain apprentices, students, student nurses and youth training trainees), they can be disregarded when counting the number of adults in the household and therefore a discount may still apply.

Also within this exercise is a “Rising 18s match” which identifies young people becoming an adult on their 18th birthday who live with a council tax payer in receipt of a single person discount. This
age change can mean that the single person discount may no longer be applicable because there are now two adults in the household who count in determining the amount of council tax payable. However where the person turning 18 meets certain disregard criteria, such as being a student, the person liable for the council tax will continue to be entitled to receive a discount. The Rising 18s match will enable councils to address, at an early stage, the risk of persons continuing to receive single person discount after becoming ineligible to receive it due to a person who does not fall to be
disregarded turning 18 in their household. ”

The Audit Commission accepts that the mere fact there is more than one resident adult in a household on the electoral register does not mean that the household is not entitled to a council tax single person discount or that there has been a failure to inform the council of a change in entitlement to single person discount (as the other resident adult or adults may fall to be disregarded for council tax purposes for a number of reasons). It appears to have difficulty explaining how it conforms with the statutory Code of Data Matching Practice laid before Parliament by the Dept of Communities.

Please tell us

a) How many of those households were investigated by the council?

b) How many of those households turned out, after investigation, to be entitled to the 25% discount that had been deducted from their bill (irrespective of which part of Section 11)?

c) How many households have been reported to the Audit Commission as 'frauds'?

d) What is any council policies are in place on the level of proof/evidence required before such households are assumed to be fraudulent?

e) What rights of appeal against this assumption of fraud (as opposed to an appeal against a amended demand notice) do/would those involved have?

f) How did the number of 'hits' divide up between rising 18s and the other NFI council tax discount exercise?

g)
i Does your fair processing notification reflect the changes recently recommended by the Audit Commission or does it still state incorrectly that where a match is found it indicates that there is an inconsistency requiring investigation?
ii If so, when will the authority alter this notice so that it accurately reflects the uses made by the NFI of personal information relating to local residents and their households provided to it by the council?
iii If not, what is your understanding of the nature of the ‘inconsistency’ giving rise to ‘matches’ on this exercise? (Please ensure, of course, that your answer is fully consistent with council tax and electoral register legislation and regulations relating to entitlement, administration and definitions of ‘residence’ etc.)
iv Has the council debated the significance of this change in the FPN suggested by the Audit Commission in terms of the definition of data matching and the model FPNs in the statutory Code of Practice? If not, why not?
h) On what date was the last paper canvass of council tax discount recipients carried out by your council?
i) What were the costs involved in any mailings and other investigations of the NFI ‘hit’ lists?
j) Did you receive any complaints from those on the NFI hit list about being identified as a ‘match’ or being investigated in connection with a ‘potentially fraudulent’ claim or payment?
k) Does the Audit Commission collect information about a) how many of the ‘hits’ on each list you have investigated and b) how many hits turn out to be fully entitled all the time?
l) What steps does the council take to comply with the Code of Practice requirements:
2.9.1 Participants should ensure that the data they provide to the
Commission are of a good quality in terms of accuracy and completeness.
Processing of inaccurate data could mean that the participant is in
breach of data protection.
2.9.2 Before providing data for matching, participants should ensure
that the data are as accurate and up to date as possible. Errors identified
from previous data matching exercises should be rectified, and action
taken to address any issues raised in data quality reports supplied by the
Commission to the participant on the secure NFI website.

Yours faithfully,

K Hodgkinson

Birmingham City Council

Dear Sir or Madam

Freedom of Information Act 2000 *** Request for Information
Thank you for your request which, was received on 12 October 2010 for
information held by the Council under the provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

You have requested information held by Birmingham City Council in respect
of the Audit Commission***s National Fraud Initiative (NFI).

Whilst Birmingham City Council is legally required to provide information
to the audit commission for the NFI, Birmingham City Council did not use
all of the details provided by the Audit Commission as it will be
undertaking its own review of Single Person discounts during the current
financial year.

The Audit Commission were advised of this at the time.

Consequently, as your request is predicated on the use of the output of
the NFI from the Audit Commission, answers are available based on the
specifics of this request, the answers to many of the questions raised are
nil

The council has used its own data matching operation which is much more
detailed then the information provided by the Audit Commission, and has
resulted in lower fraud rates being detected by the NFI for Birmingham.

Please note that under the Freedom of Information Act, an individual has a
right of access to information held by a public authority. Some of your
***requests*** are not requests for information held by the local
authority, but are questions and in those requests, we will advise you
that we do not hold the information requested.

a) How many of those households were investigated by the council?
As stated above, Birmingham City Council, whilst required to provide
information to the Audit Commission for the NFI, did not use all of the
details provided by the Audit Commission as it was undertaking its own
review of Single Person discounts. The Rising 18 list was used and I can
confirm that a total of 1675 households were investigated.

b) How many of those households turned out, after investigation,
to be entitled to the 25% discount that had been deducted from their bill
(irrespective of which part of Section 11)?

Of the 1675 cases which were investigated from the Rising 18 report 613
were still entitled to a 25% discount following investigation.

c) How many households have been reported to the Audit Commission
as 'frauds'?
As stated above, Birmingham City Council, whilst required to provide
information to the audit commission for the NFI, did not use the entire
list provided by the Audit Commission as it was undertaking its own review
of Single Person discounts. Accordingly, the output from the NFI was not
used, and therefore we did not report back to the audit commission as to
the number of ***frauds***

d) What is any council policies are in place on the level of
proof/evidence required before such households are assumed to be
fraudulent?
As stated in our corporate privacy notice, all a data matching exercise
does is indicate whether any discrepancy or error exists in the data. It
does not automatically mean that the householder has committed fraud and
Birmingham City Council does not automatically assume that any discrepancy
in the data is caused by a fraudulent claim.

This discrepancy could exist as a result of a number of factors, of which,
a potentially fraudulent claim is only one. There are number of other
possible causes for any discrepancy which are not fraudulent, including,
manual error either on the part of the householder or the Council.

If any discrepancy exists, Birmingham City Council will undertake an
investigation to determine the cause of the discrepancy or error, before
even considering whether the discrepancy or error could be a result of
fraud.

e) What rights of appeal against this assumption of fraud (as
opposed to an appeal against an amended demand notice) do/would those
involved have?
As stated above, Birmingham City Council does not automatically assume
that the output of any data matching is as the result of fraud.

As stated above, Birmingham City Council, whilst required to provide
information to the audit commission for the NFI, Birmingham City Council
did not use the entire list provided by the Audit Commission as it was
undertaking its own review of Single Person discounts. Accordingly, the
output from the NFI was not used.

f) How did the number of 'hits' divide up between rising 18s and
the other NFI council tax discount exercise?

As stated above, Birmingham City Council, whilst required to provide
information to the audit commission for the NFI, Birmingham City Council
did not use the entire list provided by the Audit Commission as it was
undertaking its own review of Single Person discounts. Accordingly, the
output from the Rising 18 report has been provided above.

g) Does your fair processing notification reflect the changes
recently recommended by the Audit Commission or does it still state
incorrectly that where a match is found it indicates that there is an
inconsistency requiring investigation?

A copy of our privacy notice is available at
[1]www.birmingham.gov.uk/privacy, and states that:

***Computerised data matching allows potentially fraudulent claims,
transactions, applications and payments to be identified. Where a match is
found and two or more records have contradictory or conflicting
information, the inconsistency will require further investigation. No
assumption can be made as to whether there is fraud, error or other
explanation until an investigation is carried out. Regardless, the data
matching process is a proven way of helping to ensure that records are up
to date and accurate.***

h) On what date was the last paper canvass of council tax discount
recipients carried out by your council?

Birmingham City Council has an ongoing rolling programme which commenced
in January 2009.

i) What were the costs involved in any mailings and other
investigations of the NFI ***hit*** lists?
As stated above, Birmingham City Council, whilst required to provide
information to the Audit Commission for the NFI, Birmingham City Council
did not use the entire list provided by the Audit Commission as it was
undertaking its own internal review of Single Person discounts. There are
no details available of the cost of any mailings that were issued as part
of the process to investigate the Rising 18 element of the NFI ***hits***

j) Did you receive any complaints from those on the NFI hit list
about being identified as a ***match*** or being investigated in
connection with a ***potentially fraudulent*** claim or payment?

No.

k) Does the Audit Commission collect information about a) how many
of the ***hits*** on each list you have investigated and b) how many hits
turn out to be fully entitled all the time?

The Audit Commission has, for the reasons set out above, not asked for
this information.

l) What steps does the council take to comply with the Code of
Practice requirements?

2.9.1 Participants should ensure that the data they provide to the
Commission are of a good quality in terms of accuracy and completeness.
Processing of inaccurate data could mean that the participant is in breach
of data protection.

2.9.2 Before providing data for matching, participants should
ensure that the data are as accurate and up to date as possible. Errors
identified from previous data matching exercises should be rectified, and
action taken to address any issues raised in data quality reports supplied
by the Commission to the participant on the secure NFI website.

An internal data matching exercise was carried out by this authority and
as the Revenues service have had a programme of review, all has been done
to ensure that our records are accurate and prevent inappropriate matches.
If you are not satisfied with this response to your request, you are
entitled to request for an internal review, to be undertaken by officers
not involved in the handling of the initial request. To do this please
contact Birmingham City Council***s central FOI Team at this address:

Corporate DP/FOI Team
3^rd Floor,
1 Lancaster Circus,
Birmingham
B4 7AB

Tel: 0121 303 1909 email: [2][Birmingham City Council request email]

If subsequently you are not satisfied with the Council***s decision,
following the outcome of the review, you may apply to the Information
Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision
unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the
Council. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at the following
address:

The Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Telephone: 01625 545745
Web Address: [3]www.ico.gov.uk

Re use of Public Sector Information
The information provided is subject to Birmingham City Council copyright,
however, it may be re-used for personal, educational or non-commercial
purposes without further reference to the City Council. If the re-use is
for other purposes, such as commercial re-use, you should notify the City
Council in writing to seek approval or agree terms for re-use. Where
Birmingham City Council does not hold the copyright, it has indicated the
copyright holder. Permission for re-use should be sought from them
directly.

Strategy Development Team
Tel: 0121 303 3583/0121 464 2152
Fax: 0121 303 1338

Please respond to Benefit Service Policy , NOT to individuals

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/privacy
2. mailto:[Birmingham City Council request email]
3. http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Dear Birmingham City Council,

To correct one simply error in this message: it is NOT the case that data matching identifies discrepancies in data. To give one example, the NFI 'data comparisons' involving council tax data bases and the electoral register do not show up discrepancies.

It is perfectly legal to be in receipt of a discount when more than one adult lives at an address where a 25% discount has been deducted, no matter if only one person is on the council tax data set.

I refer you to the summary of council tax discount law provided by the NFI legal department and available on this web site.

It is shocking that so large and powerful a council should reply to a public F o I request by making false assertions about the uses to which personal data is being put.

I therefore request a full review of the content of this response. Ideally it should be carried out by somebody who understands the discount in question.

Yours sincerely

Yours faithfully,

K Hodgkinson

Birmingham City Council

Dear Mr Hodgkinson

Request for Internal Appeal - Freedom of Information Act 2000

Further to your request for an internal reveiw receive today.

All appeals dealing with decisions to withhold information made under the
Freedom of Information Act are dealt with through the appeals process
contained under Section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your appeal will be heard by Officers who had no involvement in the
decision to withhold the information sought by yourself.

In order to assist the panel in deliberating the appeal, we would be
grateful if you could please forward to us any evidence or submissions you
feel would support your argument that the information should be disclosed.
Please address your documentation to Corporate Information Governance Team
at the address below by 26th November 2010.

After this date a panel will be convened and we will contact you once a
decision has been made. We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Patricia Rowson
Corporate Information Governance Team
Governance Directorate
3rd Floor, 1 Lancaster Circus
Birmingham B4 7DQ

show quoted sections

Dear Birmingham City Council,

May I point out that though the NFI does tend to give out conflicting messages, it currently denies that there is any requirement that the 'hits' sent to council indicate that there are 'inconsistencies'. It has, as a result of complaints by data subjects, modified its own third layer fair processing notice, and has asked participants to modify their own.

While the notice you provide does conform with the spirit and arguable the letter of the statutory code, it most certainly does not provide an accurate account of what is done with electoral register and council tax data.

Your own reply to one of my questions confirms this as you admit that large numbers of the rising 18s 'hits' were fully entitled to the discount. In that case the 'hits' could not have indicated that there was any discrepancy requiring investigation.

It may help if I point out that in law the council must make the deduction from the annual bill on the basis of a statutory assumption that the same rate/amount will apply for the whole of the coming year. My researches have shown that the nature of the data bases demanded by the Audit Commission mislead some audit departments into believing that the council tax data cells set out the legal 'basis' for the discount.

This is why I asked for background papers relating to the uses of personal data. Since what is being done with the data you send to the NFI does not comply with the uses you have informed people about, questions arise about whether FPNs are serving their purpose or merely serving to spread false ideas about what NFI 'data matching' actually is.

Of course, it may be that the council has not thought through these matters, in which case, a negative response to the question might be appropriate.

I shall be asking for more information about the 'reviews' mentioned in your reply. No such thing as a 'review' exists in council tax law. The question arises about the legal basis for such 'reviews', especially as they make use of the full electoral register.

I hope you find this additional information useful.

Yours faithfully,

K Hodgkinson

Birmingham City Council

1 Attachment

Dear K Hodgkinson

Please see the attached letter regarding your request for an internal
review.

(See attached file: Appeal Decision Letter K Hodgkinson.doc)

Yours sincerely

Corporate Information Governance Team

show quoted sections

Birmingham City Council

Dear Sir or Madam

Freedom of Information Act 2000 *** Request for Information

Further to your request for information received on 12 October 2010, an
internal review was conducted on 02/12/10 by officers unconnected with the
original response sent to you on 08/11/10. Although the panel did not
uphold your appeal they did ask that further details should be sought from
the Revenues officers to give more clarification to the answers provided
to you. The details of which are as follows:

* We do not use the electoral register in the monitoring and checking of
Single Occupier Discount. This is because it is considered to be
inaccurate or incomplete.

* We do receive information from the Elections Office. A list of the
***rising 18s*** is provided to us. We compare this to the data we
hold on our Council Tax database and identify where there is possibly
1 person registered. Letters would have been issued to these customers
and follow up action taken. Where no response is received then the
Single Occupier Discount is cancelled from a relevant date.

In relation to your enquiry under question "g" regarding the Fair
Processing Statement the answer to this is
i. As previously advised this information is available at
[1]www.birmingham.gov.uk/privacy and any changes recently recommended by
the Audit Commission have been taken into consideration
ii. Already completed
iii. This information is not recorded.

If you are not satisfied with the Council***s decision, following the
outcome of this review, you may apply to the Information Commissioner for
a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have
exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the Council. The
Information Commissioner can be contacted at the following address:

The Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Telephone: 01625 545745
Web Address: [2]www.ico.gov.uk

Regards
Birmingham City Council
Revenues and Benefits
Strategy Development Team
Tel: 0121 303 3583/0121 464 2152
Fax: 0121 303 1338

Re use of Public Sector Information
The information provided is subject to Birmingham City Council copyright,
however, it may be re-used for personal, educational or non-commercial
purposes without further reference to the City Council. If the re-use is
for other purposes, such as commercial re-use, you should notify the City
Council in writing to seek approval or agree terms for re-use. Where
Birmingham City Council does not hold the copyright, it has indicated the
copyright holder. Permission for re-use should be sought from them
directly.

Please respond to Benefit Service Policy , NOT to individuals

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/privacy
2. http://www.ico.gov.uk/