Risk based approaches to fraud management - electoral register
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please provide me with information on the Audit Commission's policies on the adoption by local councils of risk based approaches to fraud management.
Please also provide me with information on the use of the electoral register for the purposes of risk based approaches to fraud management, if, that is, the Audit Commission has any papers in which this topic is discussed.
Please also provide me with information on Audit Commission policies on the monitoring of council anti fraud strategies and on any legal advice the Audit Commission has taken on whether it is proper or necessary to use personal information taken from the electoral register as part of an Audit Commission strategy to monitor and evaluate the processes whereby councils undertake their duties to ascertain, each year, whether any discount should apply to each household in their communities.
In respect of the year 2008/9 how many people on the hit lists sent to local councils following the data matching exercise using the electoral register and council tax data sets turned out to be entitled to a 25% discount?
How much actual additional income was obtained by councils as a result of this matching exercise?
What proportion of those who were not entitled to a 25% discount should have been claiming second adult rebate instead of the 25% discount?
What proportion of those who were not entitled would, if they had been paying the full council tax, have been entitled on the grounds of low income to other council benefits?
Do statistics released by the Audit Commission in its reports take such factors into account before making claims about 'additional income' identified?
What assumptions do the Audit Commission make when arriving at statistical estimates, as published in its various annual reports and publicly available 'guidance' circulars, about additional income or potential additional income? For example, is it assumed that every 'hit' represents an amount of additional income?
Thank you very much indeed.
Yours faithfully,
K Hodgkinson
<<Information Complaints Procedure V2-0.pdf>> <<091117 Response to RFI
1180 (3).pdf>>
Dear K Hodgkinson
Please find attached:
* The Audit Commission's response to your requests for information, RFI
1180
* The Audit Commission's Information Complaints Procedure
Yours sincerely
Shaun Kavanagh
Public Enquiries Officer
part of the Chief Executive's Office
? Audit Commission
Westward House
Lime Kiln Close
Stoke Gifford
Bristol
BS34 8SR
( 0844 798 7961
E 07967 565735
? [1][email address]
i For Freedom of Information (FOI) requests please email
[2][Audit Commission request email]
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Audit Commission's handling of my FOI request 'Risk based approaches to fraud management - electoral register'.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ri...
The response says
2. information on the use of the electoral register for the purposes of risk based approaches to fraud management, if, that is, the Audit Commission has any papers in which this topic is discussed.
It is not clear what you mean by ‘information on the use of the electoral register for the purposes of risk based approaches to fraud management’ and therefore what information you are seeking. The Commission does not have a specific policy on the use of the electoral register for the purposes of risk based approaches to fraud. However, it does carry out a data matching exercise involving the electoral register in order to assist in the prevention and detection of fraud.
Quite so. And this matching exercise is based not on inconsistencies between data sets but on the basis that there is a risk that some of the output will arise from fraud. This is, therefore, a risk based hit list.
Therefore there must be some internal briefing outlining the basis for this comparison. Perhaps the legal department might have prepared some document explaining the rationale and legal background of the discount and this matching exercise which might usefully be in the public domain?
It is,after all, the personal data of the public which you are demanding from councils are processing to create these risk based hit lists. The public is supposed to be able to obtain clear and accurate explanations of the uses to which their personal data will be put.
I think the request is perfectly clear. Declining it on the basis that it is not clear is, therefore, not reasonable.
Yours faithfully,
K Hodgkinson
K Hodgkinson left an annotation ()
I suppose the more innocent people you label as potential frauds the better your targets look.
And councils probably get paid on a 'per investigation' basis too. So the more easily resolvable false positives they get the better as far as they are concerned.
These are just cynical guesses, but, sadly, they are probably true.
George Cant left an annotation ()
Hi there
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pr...
Am challenging the figures as false, i think it probably cost more to conduct this excersise that any financial saving
am also saying the figures are vapour ( did not last long enough to be stated on accounts )
K Hodgkinson left an annotation ()
Please ask the Audit Commission for copies of any legal briefings on council tax discounts prepared between 2008 and the present day,including any produced as a result of public complaints. It seems reasonable to suppose that even if they did not have such a briefing prior to falsely listing thousands of people as potential frauds/liars/errors they may have got round to it after people complained.
Dear Ms Hodgkinson, thank you for your review request. I shall be
conducting your review and will be back in contact by 18 December with
our response.
Yours sincerely
Rob Mauler
Robert Mauler
Public Enquiries Manager
part of the Chief Executive's Office
* Audit Commission
Westward House
Lime Kiln Close
Stoke Gifford
Bristol
BS34 8SR
* www.audit-commission.gov.uk/complaints
i For Freedom of Information (FOI) requests please email
[Audit Commission request email]
George Cant left an annotation ()
Lets find the vapour trail
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pr...
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/up...
Dear Ms Hodgkinson, thank you for your email.
You have asked us to review our response to your request for 'information
on the use of the electoral register for the purposes of risk based
approaches to fraud management.'
Our response to that part of your request was that it was not clear what
information you were seeking and that we do not have a specific policy on
the use of electoral register data for the purpose of risk based
approaches to fraud.
Shaun Kavanagh also explained in his letter of 17 November that we had
aggregated this request with previous requests for information concerning
the electoral register and data matching dated 18 October, 3 November and
12 November.
In our response, we asked you to either limit, refine or clarify what
information you are looking for.
In your response, you have said that you see your request as perfectly
clear, and therefore declining it was not reasonable. I am sorry but we do
not agree with this. However, we note that you have in fact provided
clarification by stating:
`there must be some internal briefing outlining the basis for this
comparison. Perhaps the legal department might have prepared some document
explaining the rationale and legal background of the discount and this
matching exercise which might usefully be in the public domain'.
We are aware that you have copies or access to copies of two legal
opinions prepared for the Audit Commission by Clive Lewis QC. These
opinions set out the rationale and legal background of the data matching
exercise involving council tax records and the electoral register. We have
also previously disclosed a briefing note prepared by Leah Griffiths, a
former member of the Commission's Legal Team, setting out a detailed
analysis of the law relating to single person discount for council tax. We
believe you have access to this briefing note. If you do not, please let
us know and we will provide you with a copy. We are content for all of
this information to be in the public domain.
In light of this, we believe you have already received or have access to
information held by the Commission which falls within your clarified
request as set out above and therefore there is no further information for
us to disclose in response to this request.
If you are unhappy with this response, you can raise a complaint with the
Information Commissioner's Office. Their contact details are:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Tel: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45
Fax: 01625 524510
[1]http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints.aspx
Yours sincerely
Robert Mauler
Robert Mauler
Public Enquiries Team Manager
part of the Chief Executive's Office
? Audit Commission
Westward House
Lime Kiln Close
Stoke Gifford
Bristol
BS34 8SR
( 0844 798 8802
E 07967 565735
? [2][email address]
ue [3]www.audit-commission.gov.uk/complaints
i For Freedom of Information (FOI) requests please email
[4][Audit Commission request email]
Dear Robert Mauler,
To reply to your points:
Given that the Audit Commission itself has used the phrase 'high risk' cases, it is prima facie absurd of it to state that it does not know what risk based approaches to fraud management means!
I therefore ask for any information connected to this so-called 'good practice' identified by the Audit Commission. Please do not ask me to explain what I mean by it. My F of I request is precisely for background documents which show what you mean by it.
I simply do not believe that the Audit Commission does not understand the term risk based approaches to fraud management. If you simply mean that you and Mr Kavanagh do not understand it, then I cannot see why you did not find somebody who does and ask them.
Many of us have received peculiar notices purporting to be 'fair processing notices' which tell us that the NFI will suspect us of fraud on the false basis that there is an inconsistency if more than one person is on the electoral register in the December of a year when a discount was ascertained and deducted in the March of that year! I know it seems ridiculous, as this 'match' does not provide any evidence of an inconsistency, but it appears to be true. This is what the Audit Commission does.
Googling quickly having read your message led me to this from an Audit Scotland publication on line. It is about the Audit Commission and it uses the term 'risk based'
For the 2006/07 exercise, local authority participants were also required to submit information from a menu of ‘risk-based’ datasets where, in conjunction with their auditors, the bodies considered that there were special risks or they were likely to benefit from the matching. These risk-based datasets included....
filter and sort matches in reports so that the best and/or highest- value matches can be investigated first. These filters allow bodies to apply a ‘recommended filter’, with the click of a mouse, or filters can be designed locally
use the application as a case management system. Bodies can annotate reports or individual matches with details of their approach to investigations and their progress, and update the status of each investigation (eg, under investigation, cleared, fraud (or error) after investigation). The financial outcomes of individual investigations can also be recorded and the aggregate overpayments identified at a glance. This facility also negates the need to prepare and send returns of findings to the NFI team and should improve the accuracy of reported outcomes...Bodies are required to submit data in other areas, such as tenancy information and former tenants’ arrears. They may also submit information, in conjunction with their auditors, from a range of ‘risk-based’ areas
Derby City Council
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...
also refers to risk based approaches to fraud intelligence. It says all fraud referrals are assessed to determine the likelihood of fraud before investigation.
A number of council web sites list the categories into which NFI fraud referrals are placed. These referrals are referred to as 'intelligince'. These are high risk, medium risk, low risk and for information only.
They explain that the Audit Commission categorises the
electoral register - council tax data base match as a 'high risk' category. They explain that failure to investigate all referrals in this category risks an adverse public interest report from you, the Audit Commission.
Since this information is on scores of council web sites, and appears to reflect the requirements of the Audit Commission's own audit inspection framework, I do find it very difficult to understand why NFI F o I people are apparently saying that they know nothing about it.
'Filtering', as referred to above, involves not bothering with referrals where the amount, if any, recouped would not be worth bothering with.
Derbyshire County Council explain that 'high risk' categorisation is worked out by the NFI using pre determined criteria.
It is not clear what 'high risk' means, as it would appear that only a small proportion of people on NFI hit lists based on the electoral register - council data sets are not entitled to the discount. The vast majority appear to be completely innocent. The majority of abortive cases/false positives appear to involve young people still in full time education of one sort or another.
Sadly, the way these things work, these people appear to be expected to eliminate themselves from fraud investigations by responding to 'investigation letters' threatening cancelled discounts unless they cooperate. It would appear that this exercise causes large numbers of complaints from people who do not like being suspected of fraud on 'risk-based' grounds.
http://archive.blackburncitizen.co.uk/20...
One would expect the NFI to be aware of the distress and worry caused by such exercises as it has presumably duties to report accurately on all the effects of its activities, so that their outcomes can be fully evaluated. Lack of trust is one widely predicted outcome of the unfair use of flawed data matching exercises which result in large numbers of false positives.
To come directly to more recent NFI publications:
In Protecting the Public Purse it says
A SPD can be claimed by householders where there are no other residents aged 18 or over living at an address. The discount amounts to a 25 per cent reduction in their council tax bill. Nationally 35 per cent of households receive this discount. Local council taxpayers meet the cost of
these discounts.*
The NFI praises councils which take a 'proactive approach' to detecting SPD fraud. It is not sure what it means by SPD in this case. It seems possible that the NFI has falsely at some point come to the conclusion that the data sets required from councils represent the legal basis of the discount or represent 'claims' made by council tax payers. Neither of these conclusions would be true or fair.
The legal opinion to which you refer appears to be based on the false idea that council tax data sets represent detaiils of claims made by taxpayers, and that auditors can find what appears to be prima facie evidence of lack of entitlement/false claims by comparing these data sets. This, of course, is nonsense. If anything, this opinion would appear to suggest that the Audit Commission has been working on the false assumption that this match appears to provide prima facie evidence of lack of entitlement.
This is a matter of concern as the human right to privacy really ought to be abandoned as a result of strong grounds to suspect fraud in each individual case. If each match did show an inconsistency, this might fairly be taken to be evidence of potential fraud, though evidence of mens rea would need to be obtained through investigation. If each match did show that a person was simultaneously making two contradictory statements as to fact, this would again provide strong evidence of potential fraud. Neither ground for suspicion arises as a result of this data matching exercise however.
The Commission says in that publication that
There are significant financial benefits to councils in using targeted resources to prevent and detect SPD fraud.
Some authorities are already
using or considering cost-effective and innovative means of reducing this
type of fraud including:
use of data matching, such as NFI;
annual reviews focused on high risk SPD fraud cases;
partnership working between county and district councils in two-tier areas;
the effective use of publicity to raise public awareness; and
verification checks when the first application for SPD is made
It would appear that the term 'annual reviews' must mean annual fraud investigations, since personal data can only be used by NFI and without consent etc. to prevent and detect fraud and this is clearly a situation in which fraud would already be existing because people are receiving the discount.
Given that the Audit Commission itself has used the phrase 'high risk' cases, it is prima facie absurd of it to state that it does not know what risk based approaches to fraud management means!
I therefore ask for any information connected to this so-called 'good practice' identified by the Audit Commission. Please do not ask me to explain what I mean by it. My F of I request is precisely for background documents which show what you mean by it.
Yours sincerely,
K Hodgkinson
* This incorrect and incomplete account of the law has been taken by the BBC to mean that this discount only applies if a person is the only person living at their address, which is not true. It would be helpful if the Audit Commission took the trouble to make fair and accurate statements of the law on this discount.
The obvious reason for this is that when it does data matching, too many people think that people on hit lists must have done something wrong if they are not living on their own at the time of the matching. This of course is complete nonsense. Such misunderstandings have long been predicted if data matching became widely used to target people for fraud investigations. People tend to assume that computers, like cameras, 'do not lie'.
The Lyons report on local government and council tax made the obvious point that this discount reflects in part the fact that people living on their own do not make as many demands on services as families and couples. We produce less sewage, use less water, take out fewer library books. It is not accurate or fair to state or suggest that councils meet the costs of this discount. I can see that it suits the purpose of the NFI to emphasise that this and anything else that the NFI is involved in is a 'cost', and to portray it negatively. But it is a rhetorical move, not a strictly accurate statement.
I am not sure what you mean by a briefing note, but I am sure people would be happy for you to post it here. Is this recent or was it prepared before the Audit Commission started sending out statistically bassed hit lists?
Thank you for your email.
I am out of the office this afternoon (Friday 18 Dec) and will have
limited email access on Monday 21 December 2009.
If your email is urgent, please resend it to
[email address] or call 0844 798 3131.
Any Freedom of Information requests should be sent directly to
[Audit Commission request email]
Dear Ms Hodgkinson, please find attached;
- my response to your email,
- a legal briefing as explained in my response, and;
- the Commission's Access to Information Complaints Procedure.
Yours sincerely
Rob Mauler
Robert Mauler
Public Enquiries Team Manager
part of the Chief Executive's Office
* Audit Commission
Westward House
Lime Kiln Close
Stoke Gifford
Bristol
BS34 8SR
* [email address]
* www.audit-commission.gov.uk/complaints
i For Freedom of Information (FOI) requests please email [Audit Commission request email]
Dear Robert Mauler,
It seems from what you say here that you have not read the documents to which you refer, because what you say about them makes no sense at all to anyone who has read and understood them.
I believe you may have been confused by the amount of nonsense the Audit Commission has put into the public domain. This is understandable.
The Commission would appear to be endebted to a named person whose name appears in these documents for pointing out council tax law to it. It is a pity it did not bother to get a review of it before it circulated so much very prejudicial and unfair information about the people on its 'hit' lists. It should not be relying on members of the public to tell it what council tax law says. It should have found out before doing any pilots. It should have found out before sending misleading circulars to all and sundry.
It does not surprise me at all that the Audit Commission has confused its own employees about council tax discounts. It has most certainly confused and mislead a whole load of other people.
Given that the law telling councils how to assess entitlement and deduct the appropriate amount is quite simple, it is something of an achievement for the Audit Commission to have misled people about these simple matters left right and centre. As a propaganda exercise it can have few rivals. I think it would come into the category of 'black propaganda' myself. Goebbels thought effective propaganda labelled people. In this example, discount recipients on NFI 'hit' lists are being labelled as fraudulent claimants, people pretending to be sole occupiers and so on. The apparent simplicity of the utterly false message being conveyed ie this match identifies fraudulent claimants is another brilliant propaganda touch. Pity public money is being spent on it though.
But now the NFI has put an account of council tax discount law into the public domain, it will no longer be able to send out misleading circulars like those of 2007 falsely alleging that this data comparison identifies fraudulent claimants.
You are under the false impression that the 2009 legal briefing supports what Clive Lewis says. But it does not. On the contrary, it shows that what he says is nonsense.
It is nonsense because what Mr Lewis says is not based on an accurate view of council tax law. Mr Lewis falsely states the content of the council tax data bases and he falsely states the significance of the comparison. This legal briefing flatly contradicts his conclusions in these matters. There was no point in asking him whether this comparison was legal, as it could not possible do what he was told it could.
This advice is dated 2009. Though it leaves out the circumstances in which it would be legal to 'cancel' a discount half way through the year, it is in most areas accurate. It appears to show beyond any reasonable doubt that the NFI has been circulating incorrect information about this data comparison. It shows beyond any reasonable doubt that this comparison is not unambigous matching.
It sets out clearly the actual basis for the discount and shows that this is not residence based. It shows that the council tax data base cells do not show the basis on which the discount was deducted.
In particular it drives a coach and horses through the instructions the NFI gave to Clive Lewis to the effect that auditors could tell by this comparison that people appeared not to be entitled to the discount that they were claiming. It drives a coach and horses through the circular sent in 2007 to key NFI contacts, and also through the false opinion of at least one Home Office letter to the Electoral Commission.
The advice goes into detail about fraud.
18. If a person provides a council with information that he is the only adult resident in a chargeable dwelling (or the only adult who does not fall to be disregarded for the purposes of the discount) and that information is false and known to be false by that person, if he does so dishonestly and if he intends by providing that information to make a gain for himself (i.e. by receiving single person discount to which he is not entitled so as to reduce his council tax bill), then he will be guilty of fraud.
This comparison does not use information provided to the council about who is resident at the time of matching by the taxpayer. It does not show or appear to show that any information provided to the council is false. It does not show or appear to show that a person is receiving a single person discount to which he is not entitled.
19. Section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006 provides that a person is in breach of the section if he dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose and intends by failing to disclose the information to make a gain for himself or another or to cause loss to another or expose another to a risk of loss.
This comparison does not show that a person has failed to disclose any information which he is under a legal duty to disclose. It does not appear to show that a person has failed to disclose any information which he is under a legal duty to disclose.
Data matching is defined in the law as the comparison of two data sets to see how far they match. The fact that different adults appear on these two data sets reflects for the most part the fact that these two data sets are governed by different legal frameworks. Parliament was repeatedly told that NFI matches identified situations that should not occur.
Differences between the lists of adults on these two data bases most certainly should occur and always will occur.
Therefore, this match is most certainly not 'data matching' as it was described to Parliament, and as described in various NFI circulars.
The Commission would appear to be endebted to a named person whose name appears in these documents for pointing out council tax law to it. It is a pity it did not bother to get a review of it before it circulated so much very prejudicial and unfair information about the people on its 'hit' lists. It should not be relying on members of the public to tell it what council tax law says. It should have found out before doing any pilots. It should have found out before sending misleading circulars to all and sundry.
Now it has found out, it needs to tell Audit Scotland.
It needs to explain why it agreed with the ICO a Code of Data Matching Practice including three totally misleading FPN notices falsely asserting that NFI 'data matching' is data matching as this was described to Parliament, and as it is described in the instructions given, it would appear, to a lawyer at public expense.
It needs to explain why its own web site falsely tells the whole world that its matches indicate 'inconsistencies' when it now, at last,has obtained a review of the relevant law and realises that its matches do no such thing. Or at least, those NFI employees who have actually read the review will realise this.
It needs to explain council tax law to Audit Scotland, which seems to think that Mr Clive Lewis'opinion sets out council tax law and the significance of this comparison when it does not.
Yours sincerely,
K Hodgkinson
All I have said here is true to the best of my belief.
The Audit Commission ought to get a legal briefing based on a full and accurate account of the data bases instead of waving a rather nonsensical one based on instructions that do not correctly reflect council tax law and the significance of this out put.
K Hodgkinson left an annotation ()
The response says nothing about risk based approaches to fraud management.
Protecting the Public Purse tells councils it is good practice to do annual reviews focussed on 'high risk fraud' cases.
Who identifies people as such, on what grounds, and using which methods? Could it be that the NFI itself is labelling people as high risk frauds. What are the criteria for so labelling people?
And if this is done by comparing different data sets, where are the FPNs telling data subjects that they may be so identified even when there is not one shred of evidence of fraud in their case? No evidence of a false statement. No evidence of lack of entitlement. No evidence of failure to provide information required by law. In short, no evidence.
Dear Robert Mauler,
You appear to be late responding, according to the guidance on this site.
You have not provided any information about risk based approaches to fraud management. Council minutes on line state that NFI people have visited them and approved such approaches. You must have some information about it somewhere. See also Protecting the Public Purse Good Practice Guide. Why not just ask whoever wrote this guidance what he was on about, who labels people as high risk fraud cases, what the basis for such identification is, what standard of proof if any is required, and how this squares with data protection law and human rights.
Should be easy: your organisation has a whole section on human rights.
Yours sincerely,
K Hodgkinson
Dear Robert Mauler,
You have not responded to my request for information about risk based approaches to fraud management. Unless that is the effective admission that matching the electoral register with council tax data sets is intended to provide information about 'risk based' approaches, because the 'hit' lists compiled as a result of this comparison are certainly not evidence based, but appear to be some kind of gamble.
Precisely how 'probable' do you think it is that people on your hit lists are fraudulent? 10% 20% 40%
Have you in fact any evidence needed to answer this question? What standard of proof do you require before assuming that people are fraudulent and, therefore, that your hit lists have resulted in savings. The criminal standard? The civil Whether of not the victim complains about being on a 'hit list? General prejudices against certain sectors of societym including people generally who claim to live alone, when it is well known that people do lie about this? Come, do share.
And why do some many councils assert that this is a 'high risk' output? Is it that councils have ignored whatever excellent and accurate guidance you provide on how to interpret and investigate your 'hit' lists and wrongly assert that this hit list is a list of high risk fraud cases?
Could you clarify, if possible.
Yours sincerely,
K Hodgkinson
Dear Robert Mauler,
It would appear that the phrase 'personal information redacted' means 'We blanked it out in the first paragraph, but whoops, we left it in further down. Trust us with all your personal information, do.'
Still, I suppose that is what you get if you deal with a body like the NFI and provide or its key contacts and participants with any information. A whoopsie.
Yours sincerely,
K Hodgkinson
Dear Robert Mauler,
The legal briefing you have supplied is dated February 2009. Given that the NFI began demanding council tax data sets well before this date, one could argue that it is outrageous that it took this long to obtain a review of council tax law. It is, however, incomplete. The investigation letters sent out in investigations quoted with approval by your organisation routinely threaten people who object or complain with 'cancelled' discounts. Council tax law does spell out the situations in which councils may and must issue adjusted demand notices. Being on an Audit Commission 'hit' list is not one of these situations.
There are four more problems with this legal briefing. It makes no attempt to define 'data matching'; it makes no reference to the statutory code of data matching practice in which that term is defined'; it does not discuss the actual data which is matched; and it comes to a conclusion which is at odds with the question asked at the outset.
What it does in the middle is to make what the Audit Commission cannot do crystal clear. The Audit Commission cannot determine whether a person is falsely in receipt of a single person discount. It cannot determine that there is no entitlement. It cannot obtain evidence under any of the heads of fraud as set out in the legal opinion itself. Perhaps this is why the conclusion of the legal briefing so tellingly avoids the actual issue ie the nature of the data being processed and the rationale underlying the processing and the risk based 'hit' lists issued afterwards.
You may not realise this, but data matching by the Audit Commission is governed by a statutory code of practice. All those involved, including yourselves, must by law have regard to this code. The aim of this code is to ensure that human rights as per the ECHR and Data Protection Law are adequately observed.
As was said when the Bill was going through Parliament
"The provisions of this Bill will enable the public sector to share information with the private sector, and vice versa. It offers the potential to help to identify individuals intent on defrauding the taxpayer by accessing benefits and services to which they are not entitled, and to prevent those applications from being granted where they should not be. This is not a broad gateway that allows any sharing of government information; rather, it is a narrow and targeted provision to prevent fraud."
Indeed the joint committee on human rights was explicit about the dangers of permitting unrestricted uses of data. It was to address such concerns that the statutory code of data matching practice was introduced.
The code does not make provision for the Audit Commission to issue 'hit' lists based on levels of risk associated with particular data sets and matches.
It is intended to ensure that you make only narrow and targeted use of the data which you demand from councils. The Code itself is in line with the public assertions made by the Audit Commission that where a match is found it indicates that there is an inconsistency, an anomaly, a discrepancy or some other situation which should not occur.
This data processing is not data matching as defined in the code of data matching practice.
It has become clear from the responses of bodies on this web site that the Audit Commission has circulated inaccurate information on this particular data processing exercise. This comparison does not identify cases where people appear not to be entitled to the discount they are claiming. It does not identify cases where people are falsely in receipt of a discount. It does not appear to provide prima facie evidence of fraud in any of the senses set out in the legal opinion you have posted here.
You appear to have been told to state the following:
Please note the Commission does not label individuals as high risk (or low or medium risk) as a result of data matching. Instead, the Commission indicates its view of the level of risk associated with particular data-sets and matches.
I cannot note any such thing because it is as plain as the nose on your face that it is rubbish.
It would appear that the Commission has not noticed that the so-called 'matches' which it required participants to investigate are matches in which individuals are labelled. These 'hit' lists are lists which you expect councils to investigate. You monitor whether councils have done this and if they do not you threaten to issue adverse reports on them under the CPA. It is evasive nonsense to claim that no individuals are labelled as high risks. These are fraud investigations, into potential fraud cases, and fraud is a crime committed by individuals.
One could of course ask why, if these people are not even suspected of being 'high risk frauds' you insist that they are investigated by their local councils? How can it be fair and proportionate to issue such 'hit' lists if there is not a high risk of fraud in each case?
Several individuals are involved: the liable adult at the address identified as a 'potential fraud' and other adults whose (third party) information from the electoral register compiled some time after council tax bills were calculated and issued has been processed.
You also claim that this briefing sets out the rationale for the data matching. It most certainly does not. It does not discuss the data being demanded or the significance of the comparison or explain what is compared with what. I can only assume that you have not read it, and this is why you state its contents incorrectly.
It is as if the NFI had sent out a letter stating the sky is blue and you then sent out a circular stating that the NFI letter stated that the sky is green.
Councils discussing these issues with their auditors would be ill advised. There is no reason why auditors should understand council tax law. Indeed, council audit staff often completely misunderstand it. Some of them falsely believe that the data sets required by the Audit Commission represent the legal position of single person discount recipients and that if the data says 'sole occupant' the taxpayer is claiming to live alone. This is defamatory rubbish. Waving a legal opinion produced by a barrister who was provided with incorrect instructions proves nothing except that the instructions were flawed, probably because those instructing him did not know what they were talking about.
The Audit Comission repeatedly sends out legally inaccurate accounts of all this, and appears, even though it now has a legal briefing setting it out, still not to understand it. Either that or it is deliberately pretending not to understand it. I would not put that past them.
What is clear is that data matching has always been discussed and defined in terms of identifying inconsistencies. Here is an example from the Public Audit Forum
Data matching produces a list of inconsistencies or hits which may require significant resources to
investigate.
The statutory code of data matching practice appears unambiguously to follow this definition of 'hits':
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. In the NFI, participating bodies receive a report of matches that they should follow-up, and investigate where appropriate, to detect instances of fraud, over- or under-payments and other errors, to take remedial action and update their
records accordingly.
The Code includes model fair processing notices, all of which repeat the same formula:
Where a match is found, it indicates that there is an inconsistency.
The Code states clearly that the purpose of data matching is
2.2.1 The Audit Commission Act 1998 defines data matching as the comparison of sets of data to determine how far they match. The purpose
of data matching is to identify inconsistencies that may indicate fraud.
You cannot identify inconsistencies by comparing the electoral register with the data sets used by the NFI.
The legal briefing shows this unambiguously.
What the legal briefing does is to correct a number of false beliefs apparently held by the Audit Commission before it got round to looking at council tax law.
It shows that the presense of another person on the electoral register is not inconsistent with the basis on which the discount was awarded; that the presence of another person is not inconsistent with entitlement, and that the presence of another person is not inconsistent with any legal duty to provide information.
It shows that this processing is not data matching as defined generally and in the statutory code and that the 'hit' lists sent for investigation are not lists of inconsistencies.
It also shows that arguments advanced by the Audit Commission that auditors can tell by comparing the electoral register with the data sets it gets from councils that
Again, put briefly, if there appears to be prima facie evidence of amounts of revenue being foregone (because, for example, persons are claiming a single occupant’s discount from council tax to which they appear not to be eligible), if the amount of revenue foregone is significant and if no arrangements are in place for taking steps in relation to that matter, the appointed auditor may well consider it appropriate to issue a report under section 8 of the Act.
Put simply, this is rubbish. It is misleading rubbish. The operative word appears to be the word 'if'. 'If' cows could fly... it might be legal to spend public money on radar to detect such airborne beasts. But as it is not possible to do that which the lawyer contemplates here, it was of course a waste of public money seeking his advise on the legality of such a non existent and hypothetical situation.
There is of course no such thing as a single occupant's discount. Therefore, no auditor could possible tell by looking at the electoral register that a person is claiming such a discount when they appear not to be eligible for it. It is perfectly possible, as the legal briefing subsequently produced by the Audit Commission shows, to be properly and fully eligible for the discount when more than one person is on the electoral register.
The data sets do not contain copies of any declarations made by discount recipients, and, of course, as the opinion makes crystal clear, the comparison is not with and data extant and applying at the time of those declarations but with a register compiled almost one year later. The use of the term claim may have rhetorical force, but it has no legal basis.
Indeed, any council that deducted the appropriate amount on the basis that a person was a sole occupant (as opposed to a person living with disregards) would be breaking not one but two laws. These are spelled out in the legal briefing provided by Mrs Griffiths.
They are also in effect spelled out by every council which follows the law in every demand notice sent to every liable adult in its community. It therefore beggars belief that the Audit Commission and its high paid lawyers get this so very wrong.
I therefore request an internal review on the grounds that the response provided is not reasonable. The 'hit' lists issued by the Audit Commission are lists of individuals, of people. Therefore individuals are labelled as 'potential frauds'; they are suspected of fraud, and, as the NFI categorises them according to the degree of 'risk' they are clearly categorised and labelled as 'high risk' fraud cases.
Indeed, it would appear that Audit Scotland believes so strongly that they are frauds that it says the way for honest people to protect themselves is to tell the council they are not entitled to the discount. Why an honest person should have to pay an extra few hundred pounds a year to avoid being suspected of being a 'high risk' fraud is not clear. This cannot be fair or proportionate, can it?
Yours sincerely,
K Hodgkinson
K Hodgkinson left an annotation ()
For some reason, the Audit Commission is trying to argue that the individuals identified and placed on its hit lists are not regarded as high risk fraud cases. This of course begs the question of why they are on hit lists compiled after automated data processing designed to identify inconsistencies, and governed by a statutory code of data matching practice which asserts that where a match is found it indicates, barring co-incidences, that there is a potential fraud, and an inconsistency requiring investigation.
Unless there is very strong evidence to suspect these people of fraud, they should not be on hit lists at all. Unless there is very strong evidence of fraud they should not be subjected to serious criminal investigations by their local councils.
As a Command Paper put before Parliament, to which the Audit Commission contributed, says:
"Simply uncovering matches in fields which should be incompatible provides strong suspicion of fraud for further investigation (for example claimants who claim housing benefits on the grounds of having no income while also appearing on payroll records)."
It would appear that the Audit Commission may have been what they call economical with the truth in respect of its data processing activities. Some of them may uncover matches in fields which should be incompatible, but it would appear that many of them do not.
If the Audit Commission is now denying that they have been categorised as high risk fraud cases, then it would appear to have a lot of explaining to do. Why, for example, has it circulated to various government departments and agencies material stating clearly that these people are identified as fraudulent claimants? Why does it circulate and rely on a legal opinion which (albeit completely falsely) that auditors can tell that people are not entitled to the discount they are claiming? Has this tidal wave of misleading information been circulated deliberately, or was it an innocent oversight on the part of the Audit Commission? How come, after pilot exercises in which councils investigated thousands of people without finding lack of entitlement or grounds for legal action the Audit Commission has continued to circulate the legal opinion in which the misleading and completely incorrect information about this match is repeated?
Let us review the facts once again.
The Audit Commission demands that councils send it both the full electoral register and council tax discount data sets. It compares these sets, and insists that councils carry out criminal investigations into all those cases flagged up by the comparison. The crime in question is fraud. The people selected for investigation are suspected of fraud to the extent that councils refuse to state which personal information is being used as this might prejudice the investigation. This is just how serious the matter is.
And now the Audit Commission is denying that there is a high risk that the people being so investigated are criminals. Is there a medium risk? Is there a very low risk? Just how probably or possible does it have to be before the Audit Commission can bully councils into investigating you, yes you, that you are a criminal?
The only guidance I can find on this is in the legal opinion that the Audit Commission so unreasonably pretends sets out the legal basis for this exercise (though one must suppose that even the Audit Commission by now must realise that it sets out no such thing).
“The district auditor holds a position of much responsibility. In some respects he is like a company auditor. He is a watchdog to see that the accounts are properly kept and that no one is making off with the funds. He is not bound to be of a suspicious turn of mind…..but if anything suspicious does turn up, it is his duty to follow it up…..In other respects,
however, the duties of a district auditor go far beyond those of a company auditor. He must see whether, on the financial side, the councillors and
their officers have discharged their duties according to law.
He is not bound to be of a suspicious turn of mind, but if anything suspicious does turn up, it is his duty to follow it up.
In this case, I see no room at all for doubt that the Audit Commission has been insisting that local auditors go way beyond anything that the legal opinion provides for. It is issuing statistically based hit lists which it insists that councils must investigate despite the fact that nothing suspicious at all has been found as a result of comparing the electoral register with council tax data sets.
It appears also to be the duty of the auditor to see that the councillors and their staff have carried out their financial duties according to the law. In this case, the law in question is council tax discount law and council tax demand notice law. As we shall see, there would appear to be prima facie evidence that the Audit Commission, so far from ensuring that councils obey council tax law, has only just got round to reading the law in question for itself. It would appear to be a case of the blind leading the blind.
The Audit Commission refers to the cases it insists are investigated as 'hits'. See, for example, Hitting the Fraudsters the Audit Commission Way. Available at http://www.publicservice.co.uk/article.a...
Another term used is the term 'match'.
This activity is currently covered by a statutory code of data matching practice, designed to ensure that the processing of personal data carried out by the Audit Commission complies with data protection requirements, which in turn are designed to ensure that the Audit Commission does not interfere with the human rights of individuals.
The Code states clearly that the aim of data matching is 2.2.1 "to identify inconsistencies that may indicate fraud."
The Audit Commission has always argued that if auditors can tell by comparing one set of data held by the council with another set of data that a person is not entitled to some benefit or allowance then the auditor would be justified in issuing a report stating that the council did not have satisfactory methods in place to ensure that public money was properly taken care of. This includes ensuring that the financial situation of the council is not adversely affected by fraudulent claims.
The code uses the word 'inconsistency' but other words used are 'anomaly' and 'discrepancy'. All of these words clearly imply that a match shows on the face of it a situation that should not occur. On the face of it, if both data sets are accurate, the person should not be getting the benefit that they are getting. Or on the face of it a person has made a false statement in order to obtain a benefit. A third possibility is that a person made an initially correct claim but has failed in some duty to report changes in circumstances that remove entitlement.
Lack of entitlement in itself does not prove fraud. Fraud is an offence of dishonesty, it requires a dishonest frame of mind, dishonest intentions. So a person who had due to innocent oversight forgotten to inform of some change in circumstances would not be guilty of fraud.
The Code of Practice states that fair processing notices must be issued in respect of Audit Commission Data Processing. The aim of these is to make the uses of the data 'fair', i.e. at the very least clear and transparent.
In respect of the processing involving council tax records and the full electoral register, the notification has been anything but transparent and fair. It follows the arguments put above: it states that where the Audit Commission reports a 'match' there is an inconsistency requiring investigation.
The Code also states that
"The data required from participants will be the minimum needed to undertake the matching exercise, to enable individuals to be identified accurately and to report results of sufficient quality"
For the Audit Commission to turn round and deny that the individuals on its 'hit' lists are labelled as 'high risk' fraud cases is nothing short of absurd.
In respect of transparency and fairness, so far from the information on this match being fair and transparent, there would appear to be a large body of evidence to suggest that the Audit Commission itself has not correctly understood the data it has been processing or the significance of the output. There is nothing at all fair about publishing reports and documents which false state or imply that the output from this comparison is lists of cases where there appears to be prima facie evidence that people are claiming discounts to which they appear not to be entitled, or that state that where a child becomes 18 there is no longer entitlement. The word 'fair' is the last word to be applied to this blatant nonsense.
I have referred to evidence suggesting that the Audit Commission has not understood the data it is processing and the significance of the output.
This evidence includes the following:
1 a legal opinion commissioned by the Audit Commission, partly in response to complaints expressed by many local councils and also by the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner that this use of data was not 'fair';
2 a letter put in the public domain in response to a Freedom of Information request made on this web site, and signed by two auditors working for the Audit Commission;
3 reports published by the Audit Commission which misrepresent the legal basis of entitlement and the significance of the data;
4 a legal briefing prepared by the Audit Commission in 2008, in response to complaints, which acknowledges that information put into the public domain by the Audit Commission could more fully reflect the law.
This, astonishingly, is what this briefing actually says:
"Correspondence received by the complaints unit at the Commission has raised a number of questions as to how entitlement to council tax discount on the basis of being the only resident of a dwelling who does not fall to be disregarded for the purposes of the discount (which we shall call single person discount) works."
The question of how this works ought to have been considered by the Audit Commission and indeed by all the external auditors advised and appointed by the Audit Commission before the Audit Commission began messing about with people's personal information. I refer to the legal opinion obtained by the Audit Commission in support of the common sense idea that not considering this question before embarking on comparisons and 'hit' list compiliation amount to a serious breach of duty. For it is the job of auditors to make sure that council obey the financially related laws governing their activities. I think that in effect the Audit Commission is actively encouraging councils not to obey them. The statutory content of demand notices is one example where councils are obviously trying to make people give them the information the NFI requests even though there is no legal obligation and the councils cannot issue the fines they so often imply can be issued. For example, there is no law at all stating that you must tell the council tax department when any of your children turns 18 even if they do fall to be disregarded.
"21. XXXXXXXX identified paragraphs 42 and 47 of the NFI 2006/07 national report under the section “Other data matching” as inaccurate. I have looked at
all of section 3 (paragraphs 42-51) and I agree that the content of paragraphs 42 and 47 could more accurately reflect the legislation."
As it stood, the information incorrectly reflected the law. Let's put it bluntly. It got the law plain wrong. It should not have taken a complaint to point this out to the Commission. The Commission ought to have got the law right from the start. It ought to have asked for a legal opinion based on the correct law, not, as it did, a legal opinion based on incorrect law.
*******************************************************
What has the Audit Commission actually been comparing with what?
It seems that the Audit Commission has not been processing all single person discounts to compare them with the electoral register. It has been processing only those where council tax data sets only include one adult resident. It has listed as 'hits' any house where more than one adult appears on the electoral register.
The main problem with this was summed up extremely well by what appears to be the only council in the whole country where officers have provided a full account of this mess, accompanied by legally accurate information on the actual legal basis of the 25% discount.
"One complication of this exercise is that people can quite properly receive an SPD yet have more than one adult occupier."
What makes this council so different? It appears that the officers in question held old fashioned ideas about preparing legally fair and accurate reports for elected council members. It also appears that at least one council officer was IRRV qualified, meaning that he or she had actually read and understood council tax law.
Sadly, many officers receiving and reporting on NFI 'hit' lists do not understand council tax law and make legally false statements about the 'hits' which, if made in connection with a named invididual, would be defamatory.
The Code also states that participants must supply accurate and up to date information for matching. In respect of this match, the Audit Commission is demanding that councils supply data which they have no legal duty to collect and which residents have no legal duty to provide.
Again, it would appear that the Audit Commission has only just realised this. For it was not apparently until 2009 that it bothered to read council tax law.
When it did read it, it seems to have had a surprise:
"A council is under a duty to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether a single person discount is applicable in respect of a particular chargeable
dwelling.
What is “reasonable” will be construed in accordance with the usual public law principles but it is clear from the complainant's correspondence that councils have not interpreted this to mean that they must seek information from persons at every chargeable dwelling before every financial year as to whether they are entitled to single person discount. This does not appear to me to be 'unreasonable' in view of the expense and time that would be involved in carrying out such an annual check."
Again, the Audit Commission ought to have known council tax law before it started on the pilots.
Indeed, it has cited with approval exercises carried out by four Lancashire councils which explicitly stated that they were abandoning the annual check because they had to achieve efficiency savings to meet the demand of... guess who .... yes, their auditors.
Morever, in the document in which it cited these exercises so approvingly, it referred to the 'hits' obtained as guess what 'high risk' cases. Once again, the Audit Commission contradicts itself. Here is yet more evidence that the information about council tax law and the data sets which the Audit Commission provided to the lawyer from whom it purchased a legal opinion were legally incorrect.
This is 'evidence free' suspicion. Let me quote from others. 'Where's the evidence?'
http://www.lutonlibdems.org.uk/index.php...
Yet another case of personal data being unfairly processed and used, with innocent entitled people being distressed.
This happened at one of the councils where victims are so happily listed as 'high risk frauds' by Sean Kavanagh of the NFI in a F of I letter available on the internet:
It was proposed by Councillor XXXXXX, seconded by Councillor XXXXXX and unanimously agreed:
(a) “That at the conclusion of the exercise the Head of Revenue Services send a letter of apology to all recipients of the letter whose claim for single person discounts is upheld.”
(b) “That consideration be made of how complaints are dealt with by Experian and the Council.”
Resolved:
(a) That at the conclusion of the exercise the Head of Revenue Services send a letter of apology to all recipients of the letter whose claim for single person discounts is upheld.
(b) That consideration be made of how complaints are dealt with by Experian and the Council.”
"The criticism that this letter was sent to a number of elderly or otherwise vulnerable people is unjustified as these groups of people could not be identified beforehand."
Ah, so that makes it all right then.
The Audit Commission's allies may not have told them about all this, but again they may have agreed to weather the storm and see just how far they could push it.
Let me state once again:
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).
Therefore the legal opinion which the Audit Commission complaints officer appears to have been told to say shows that this exercise is legal shows no such thing because it is based on flawed 'instructions' about the data in council tax data sets and the significance of the output.
All this means of course, that what the Audit Commission is actually doing is not 'data matching'as it has repeatedly been defined by the Audit Commission itself and as it was defined in papers put to Parliament, and as it was understood by the Home Office. The blame for this widespread misunderstanding has, it seems to me, to be laid firmly at the door of the Audit Commission.
Therefore, it is questionable whether the Audit Commission can legally demand the electoral register from councils. For it is not making the use of it that it told the lawyer it instructed that it was making, and nor could any external auditor make the use of it that the lawyer thought could be made of it.
The law says that participants must supply data to the NFI to be used in data matching. This comparison is not data matching because it does not indicate inconsistencies. There is nothing inconsistent in receiving a 25% discount when a person is on the electoral register but not on council tax data sets.
Dear K Hodgkinson, thank you for your email of 3 February in which you requested an internal review because you felt our response was not reasonable.
In your email, you explained that you disagreed with the content of the information we've provided. At the end of your email you said:
I therefore request an internal review on the grounds that the
response provided is not reasonable. The 'hit' lists issued by the
Audit Commission are lists of individuals, of people. Therefore
individuals are labelled as 'potential frauds'; they are suspected
of fraud, and, as the NFI categorises them according to the degree
of 'risk' they are clearly categorised and labelled as 'high risk'
fraud cases.
I'm afraid that reviewing your request simply because you disagree with the content of the information is not a requirement of the Freedom of Information Act.
An internal review can look at the way your request was handled, for example, if we haven't responded within the timescale set out in the legislation or if we haven't provided the information in the format you requested or haven't explained any reasons for refusing the request properly. We could also review a decision to refuse access to information.
This is set out in more detail in our Access to Information complaints leaflet which was sent with my response.
The Commission is happy with the content of the information that we've provided and as we've already explained our position in some detail, we do not propose to review the matter further.
Yours sincerely
Rob Mauler
Robert Mauler
Public Enquiries Manager
part of the Chief Executive's Office
* Audit Commission
Westward House
Lime Kiln Close
Stoke Gifford
Bristol
BS34 8SR
* [email address]
* www.audit-commission.gov.uk/complaints
i For Freedom of Information (FOI) requests please email [Audit Commission request email]
K Hodgkinson left an annotation ()
The Audit Commission denies referring to the lists sent to councils as hit lists. It says this is not an appropriate term. However, an article written by an Audit Commission person available on line uses the term 'hit' to refer to the cases sent to councils to investigate. So the Audit Commission even in this small matter is contradicting itself.
K Hodgkinson left an annotation ()
Dear Sir
May I point out that data matching is governed by a statutory code of data matching which your organisation gave to the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament.
This Code says
2.5.2 The Commission will undertake new areas of data matching on a pilot basis to test their effectiveness in preventing or detecting fraud. Only where pilots achieve matches that demonstrate a significant level of
potential fraud should they be extended nationally.
The legal briefing obtained by the Commission in 2009 after complaints shows that this exercise is not data matching and does not demonstrate one case of lack of entitlement, leave alone fraudulent claiming or receipt of the discount.
Here we do appear to have an inconsistency.
The Code says
2.5.1 The Commission will only choose data sets to be matched where it has reasonable evidence that fraud is likely to be found as a result of matching those data sets.
The Commission now has a briefing pointing out to it in some detail that fraud will not be found as a result of matching thise data sets.
The rising 18 exercise cannot find fraud as the situation in which fraud would be possible has not yet arisen.
The Code states
2.6.1 The data required from participants will be the minimum needed to undertake the matching exercise, to enable individuals to be identified accurately and to report results of sufficient quality.
The Commission is now apparently trying to deny that individuals are labelled as high risk frauds. This denial is not credible.
Here we appear to have another apparent inconsistency.
The Code states
The Audit Commission Act 1998 defines data matching as the comparison of sets of data to determine how far they match. The purpose of data matching is to identify inconsistencies that may indicate fraud.
The Commission, following complaints about legally inaccurate publications, asked its lawyers about council tax law. The lawyers told them that this match does not identify inconsistencies and that its publications could more accurately reflect the law. It told them that the mere presence of a second adult was not an inconsistency.
Yet the Audit Commission appears to show no intention at all of ceasing to process the data and issue 'hit' lists for councils to investigate.
The Code says
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. In the NFI, participating bodies receive a report of matches that they should follow-up, and investigate where appropriate, to detect instances of fraud, over- or under-payments and other errors, to take remedial action and update their
records accordingly.
The Audit Commission says on its web site something quite different. It says
Where a match is found it may indicate that there is an inconsistency that requires further investigation
So no actual inconsistency, according to the Audit Commission, is required. This begs the question of what a 'match' actually is. A 'match' is not, according to the Audit Commission, an inconsistency, it is simply any situation where there might, on whatever reasoning the Audit Commission chooses to apply, be an inconsistency.
It would appear that the Audit Commission is denying that the individuals identified via its 'hit' lists are regarded as being 'high risk'. If we believe this, we have to believe that they may be low or even medium risk. All the less justification for issuing the 'hit' lists, then.
Perhaps the Audit Commission, which declines to provide any evidence it has, does not really know what the statistics might be.
But it is clear that it does not feel there is a need for any appearence of prima facie evidence of an inconsistency before it directs participants to set about investigating people. Yet the existence of such was stated in the opinion they had from counsel, to justify the use of the electoral register. He said it would be justified if the comparison appeared to provide prima facie evidence that people were not entitled to the discounts that they were claiming. Of course the comparison does not appear to show any such thing.
Sadly, the Audit Commission has no policies on this sort of thing, which means one cannot even complain that it is acting in breach of its own policies.
However, the Code says this:
2.8.1 The processing of data by the Commission in a data matching exercise is carried out with statutory authority.
This suggests that the only processing which the Commission has statutory authority to carry out is data matching as defined in the Code, but not data matching as the Audit Commission actually does it or as it defines it itself, ie differently from the definitions in the Code.
The Code says that fair processing notices should be clear prominent and timely.
Given the amount of evidence to suggest that what the Audit Commission does appears to be inconsistent with the Code, it is, perhaps, not surprising that the Audit Commisson, having finally realised that there is in effect no such thing as a single person or sole occupant discount wants to re-write the Code.
Perhaps the first thing to do is eliminate the word 'fair'. No amount of advance notification can make it 'fair' to issue 'hit' lists for investigation using usual practices for the investigation of fraud and error, of cases where an investigation might turn up an inconsistency, as opposed to one where data matching has identified such a situation. If the individuals identified are not even labelled as high risk, then it is even less fair, perhaps.
On the contrary, it is blatantly unfair to issue such 'hit lists, and it seems especially unfair to do this when the data in question has to be provided by law to councils and is provided for the purpose of exercising the franchise in a democratic society.
For doesn't the European Convention on Human Rights say something about breaches of privacy having to be necessary in a democratic society? It would be ironic indeed if a judge decided that it was necessary to use electoral register information to label people as potential frauds on the evidence free basis that there might turn out to be an inconsistency if these people were investigated on fishing trips in search of such directed by Auditors.
The NFI has referred to its data bases as a 'national ID base'. If nothing else, the sheer numbers of abortive investigations into falsely and unfairly labelled 'high risk' individuals caused by this data processing and its out put should alert us to the dangers of the personal information bonanza which is currently putting money in the pocket of the credit reference agencies who are the ones who really make out of all this and causing distress and detriment to so many innocent entitled people.
K Hodgkinson left an annotation ()
To make matters worse, the Audit Commission refers in online guidance provided to external auditors to 'Protecting the Public Purse' just one of a series of documents which as the Audit Commission's legal officer admits does not accurately reflect the law governing the administration and deduction of council tax discounts. Ironically, the same set of papers makes it clear that auditors should know and understand the legal frameworks governing the administration of benefits.
So the same body tells the auditors it appoints that they should understand the law whose application they are monitoring, but provides them with totally false, unfair and misleading information about council tax discounts, thus putting both them and the public and councils at risk.
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
K Hodgkinson left an annotation ()
Evidence about the 'risk based' process in the public domain:
The North Stafforshire one demonstrates that once you have been on one of these 'risk based' hit lists this becomes data on you which is itself shared widely with other bodies. It shows how innocent people are stigmatised and labelled in the course of this process.
The Audit Commission appears not to understand that this is unfair, especially when the electoral register itself is used.
What is fair about labelling innocent entitled people as high risk matches on a statistical hunch?
What is fair or proportionate about a system for investigation thousands of people per council on this basis? Some councils investigate 8,000 cases and find no fraud! So it would appear to be difficult to argue that any of these hit lists are based on evidence.
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/images/Nati...
http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/cairo/docs/...
http://www.croydon.gov.uk/contents/docum...
http://tivoli.cheltenham.gov.uk/committe...
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...
http://cmis.derby.gov.uk/CMISWebPublic/B...
http://moderngov.staffordshire.gov.uk/Pu...