Author Topic: Incompetence: CCBC (and other Public Bodies and Statutory Undertakers...)  (Read 24912 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

norman08

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
Re: Incompetence: CCBC (and other Public Bodies and Statutory Undertakers...)
« Reply #210 on: October 10, 2018, 07:37:42 PM »
Hugo I've just done a rough count ,in about a hundred yard circle their are at least 30 legit households with single occupancy ,houses and flats in my area , I'd like to know how some ccb  councilors over 60 claim public transport allowance when they have a pus pass, and I've seen them using that pass to go to Conwy, I think things need looking into at our council ( temple of waste) .🤔😡

Hugo

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
Re: Incompetence: CCBC (and other Public Bodies and Statutory Undertakers...)
« Reply #211 on: October 11, 2018, 08:00:48 AM »
That's a high number Norman but they may not all be claiming single person's discount.  Each case has to be judged on it's merits and if there is more than one person living in the house over the age of 18 then the householder may not be able to claim the 25% discount.  The other people could be children over 18 or lodgers or partners so it's not straight forward
However 40% claiming that benefit does sound excessive and needs looking into

norman08

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
Re: Incompetence: CCBC (and other Public Bodies and Statutory Undertakers...)
« Reply #212 on: October 11, 2018, 10:52:15 AM »
40% is high but have our council got their sums right 🤔 Not very often would happen  in Llandudno alone you have a great deal of single occupancy, widowers single men/ women ,I now a few widowers up your way ,also Martin Edwards ex wife lives round Llys helig 😅

Hugo

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
Re: Incompetence: CCBC (and other Public Bodies and Statutory Undertakers...)
« Reply #213 on: October 11, 2018, 03:23:19 PM »
From what Meleri has said Norman the Cllr would have easy access to the relevant records so I assume that what he says is fact, in any case the other Councillors are not disputing the accuracy of the figures.
40 % is suspicious and I'm surprised that the fraud investigators have not already looked into this abnormally high percentage.
Surely a small scale pilot exercise by the CCBC could say whether it is worth looking in to this matter further

SteveH

  • Newshound
  • *****
Re: Incompetence: CCBC (and other Public Bodies and Statutory Undertakers...)
« Reply #214 on: October 11, 2018, 04:28:35 PM »
Some information on this subject, from the private sector, but the figures might be helpful.........

Chris Berry, NSL’s Account Director for Revenues and Benefits, highlights a first positive step in evolving the Council Tax system.

Since its inception in 1993 Council Tax payers who live on their own have received a 25% reduction in their bill. This is because the Council Tax is based on two elements – property and occupancy – which are split 50/50. In the original scheme an empty property which was furnished or had been empty longer than 6 months would receive a 50% reduction (the ‘property element’) and those who had single occupancy would only pay half of the ‘occupancy element’. This all changed when a number of councils scrapped the empty discount along with the second home discount, and in some cases charged more to have a property of this type.

Over the years this 25% reduction has seen to have been abused by many and the Audit Commission estimated that around 4% of Single Persons Discounts (SPD) are fraudulent. Such fraud denies Councils of much needed revenue and increases the tax base for those who pay the correct amount. It is estimated that £90 million per year of Council revenue is lost due to incorrect SPD claims. A number of companies assist Council’s with reviewing these, but the issue doesn’t seem to go away, with Council’s reporting steady cancellation rates of SPD’s after each review.

With currently just over 7.6 million discounts being claimed across the country, at an average of £330 per discount, £2.5 billion could be added to the Council tax base just by scrapping the discount.

Admittedly whilst a complete removal of the discount looks good on paper we cannot go down the same route as the Bedroom tax and have those who are on the breadline suffering when they are eligible for a reduction. Therefore, would a scheme for those in properties banded E or above to pay in full be acceptable? This could ensure that those living in small properties on their own would still be eligible and those in larger properties wouldn’t. This would affect around 749,000 Council Tax payers who live on their own in properties banded E or above.

It’s no secret that the Council Tax scheme needs evolving, but why not do it part by part rather than in one swoop? And the amendment of the Council Tax SPD seems a logical place to start.



This might interest Hugo ....  I noticed at the end of the above article from 2013 , mention that this company NSL appears to be contracted out to various government departments including the DVLA, .............
The contract will run through to November 2016, and will include the opportunity to extend up to a further two years. NSL previously provided VED enforcement for the DVLA from May 2006 to November 2011.

Mark Underwood, NSL Chief Executive, said: “We are delighted to be back working with the DVLA, and to be undertaking this important work for them, especially when one realises that it’s been estimated that vehicle excise duty evasion costs the UK Treasury more than £40m a year.* NSL is proud to represent one of the most efficient and cost-effective services for this work, given that we can utilise our existing enforcement operations network throughout the UK.”

Malcolm Dawson, Chief Executive of the DVLA, said: “We look forward to working with NSL as our national wheelclamping contractor. Their proposal supports DVLA in its commitment to reducing vehicle tax evasion and will strengthen the wide range of measures we have in place to improve vehicle tax compliance.”

The contract is UK wide, and covers vehicle immobilisation, removal, storage, disposal, and enforcement notice issuing.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Hugo

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
Re: Incompetence: CCBC (and other Public Bodies and Statutory Undertakers...)
« Reply #215 on: October 11, 2018, 07:00:30 PM »
Thanks very much for posting those two articles Steve and although the Audit Commission estimated that around 4% of Single Persons Discounts (SPD) are fraudulent I would think that the figure was higher, probably much higher

As for the DVLA and the NSL,  what more can I say!      They are a real comedy duo and about as much use as a chocolate tea cup.
If they weren't dealing with public money it would be a farce, but they are dealing with our money.    I don't like criticising Public Departments because the vast majority of the staff are hard working and conscientious and the problems are normally created by senior management or Government interference but with the DVLA  I'll gladly make an exception
I might post something on here tomorrow about the DVLA but now I'm going out for a pint.    Thank goodness for small mercies and the DVLA isn't in charge of the Breweries!

Hugo

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
Re: Incompetence: CCBC (and other Public Bodies and Statutory Undertakers...)
« Reply #216 on: October 12, 2018, 08:01:48 AM »
I think that I'll await my reply from the DVLA before making a comment on them.    When you ask for something from them under the FOI Act they usually send back a long reply but if you study what they actually say then they have told you very little.
I sent a request in and they replied but didn't answer the question I asked, they did it again on my 2nd request so I sent a 3rd and now a 4th reminder and I'm awaiting a response.
Now I've asked them to just answer yes or no to the question I asked but I don't expect a definitive response because it would expose the department