I suppose part of the answer is to ensure that the fair-processing information given out at the point of collection of Council Tax information tells the public in suitable plain language about the LGFA and the limitations it places on us.
Not that this will deter the determined objector of course!
Iain
>>> Doug Colyer <[log in to unmask]> 08/14/06 5:00 pm >>>
Because of the problems related to the accuracy of the Electoral Register in past elections I have been instructed to determine how accurate the Register is for my particular constituency. Having canvassed a number of electors I have been taken to task by many who believe that having told the Council Tax Office, the information is therefore held by the Council, and any failure to inform the Electoral Registration Officer is due to ineptitude and inefficiency on the part of the Council. It has proved difficult to convince the more vociferous the Council Tax regulations and Data Protection make such an action ultra vires.
The Information Commissioner's Office is also adamant that providing changes of address is a `no no`, as is making reference to the dissemination of such information on the Council Tax bills. It is impossible to see how actual consent can be obtained when the Council Tax payer receives a bill and does not sign anything at that stage.
I pointed out to the ICO that One Stop Shops disseminate such information to Council Tax, Housing Benefit and Electoral Registration, with great satisfaction from the public, whereas those who tell the Council Tax office think they are telling all parts of the Council when in fact they are not It is also difficult to convince the public that a change of address freely given to the Council Tax Office is of such a personal nature that it cannot be passed on to the Electoral Registration Officer. And as a Presiding Officer at elections I have been on the receiving end of electors who are furious at not being on the Register, and who have "told the Council".
Do my colleagues have similar views or am I being too naive to think the public understand the difference?
If there are such similar views is there any way that the, I believe, common-sense approach can be taken?
Are there any authorities who have addressed the issue and come up with a suitable solution?
Doug
Douglas Colyer
Senior Auditor
Internal Audit Services
Suffolk Coastal District Council
(01394 444248)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
Any queries about sending or receiving message please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Iain Harrison
Information Management Consultant
Leicester City Council
0116 252 7606
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
Any queries about sending or receiving message please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
