NO2ID

Chris Williams:

The governmnet/courts have taken this view as long ago as 2006.

See http://forum.no2id.net/viewtopic.php?t= ... 25e2c0a2ce

Unfortunately the link no longer works

A truly disturbing precedent has been set with that judgement that can now be referred back to, one might think that was the govs intention.

I wonder if any of us will get away with misreporting our earning etc on tax returns and using the same excuse, after all its not our 'fault' if there were record keeping mistakes.

It should - though it gets redirected into this one :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/pers ... end.html#3

Around 2/3 down the page

So what does this mean for liability in the case of the identity verification service. If they make an error in their "record keeping" (how quaint) and a bank, for example, releases £300K for a mortgage on the basis that the civil servants in the IPS say that the applicant is who they claim to be but it turns out they aren't, then I presume this judgement sets a precedent that it's a problem for the bank. What sort of business would rely on such a service, rather than its own checks based on utility bills, passports and the like.

Certainly not the banks. As we know. APACS and Barclaycard told the Home Office in January 2009 that there is nothing in the NIS for them. The Crosby Forum told them the same thing in March 2008.

Crosby also told the Home Office that the banks and the major retailers are better placed then the government to authenticate payments. If they start launching cut-down, competitive authentication systems of their own, the threat is clear – the irrevocable irrelevance of the Home Office's NIS will be quickly made clear to everyone and the ineffably fatuous IPS will be buried in derision.

All of which is true, but not the point of this thread, which is meant to be about the government's and Experian's childishly cowardly inability to face up to their responsibilities. As Stanley Baldwin said of the newspaper magnates of the 1930s – but he could just as easily have intended today's barons of the database state – they enjoy "power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages".

The way I see it is that liability should be linked to responsibility. If we choose to use a government record keeping system then it’s a case of buyer beware, in that we decided to buy the product so if it is craap then it is our own fault. The situation is reversed when we are forced to use it. That’s because we play no part in making any decision that has damaged us and in this case the government is responsible and should be entirely liable. This is basic justice, but quite honestly what do you really expect from the Blair family. What a nightmare to take it to the High Court only to find that the most vested of interests is chosen to hear your case. It sounds more like a banana republic than a British court.

The precedent set was that set by the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal in Quinland v Governor of Swalesdale Prison, and not by the current High Court judgement, and because the error was in the order of the court, the claim against the prison governor could not proceed.

It seemed a little difficult to extend that principle to the petit fonctionaires who screw up, but was it that they acting on a (possiby mistaken) court order?

As to the Revenue, and your tax return, unfortunately not. Some MPs etc have tried that one, and are being investigated / pursued. Mind, they would likely get off fairly lightly compared to the small people,

In fact I see both were in the Appeal Court (?).

In Quinland v Governor of Swalesdale Prison it was the existence of the order of the court (and that followed an earlier case) that provided the lawful justification. The judicial error was/is protected either expressly by statute or in common law.

It's not entirely clear from the Register report, but there's also the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 s2.5, that also protects adminstrative proceedings where the bureaucrats were carrying out (or are purporting to discharge) responsibilities in connection with the judical process(es) even if mistakes were made.

Absent an order of the court, can the unnamed bureaucrat be held to be protected having made a mistake? I would have thought that was still arguable .......... since without an order or instruction the bureaucrat was doing something which although part of a normal administrative proceeding connected with judical processes was clearly without authority.

On the Criminal Records Bureau, I've just recently recieved an enhamced dsiclosure certificate that is said to be strictly private and confidential, and has all sorts of caveats. They effectively accept no responsibility for the accuracy of the certificate as they accept no responsibility for the accuracy of police or other records on which the certificate is based.

Isn't this like Insland Revenue, which effectively, is held to be incapable of error and cannot be held culpable no matter what?

Wasn't there a TV show about this recently where people had got horrific bills out of the blue and got taken to court, ruined, etc, because of laughably absurd mistakes on the part of the tax office...largely because the tax office assumes the stance "We Don't Make Mistakes. Ever."

Essentially, it's the State saying "I make the laws, whatchya gonna do about it?"

Do you have a reference for that? Approximate date? Channel?

Thanks.

This sounds an awful lot like the tax credits fiasco which IIRC is unlikely to go away any time soon...

Could it be this - ITV's Tonight prgram?

The Inland Revenue's telephone service is a 'massive mess' with mistakes ignored and letters binned, according to a whistleblower.

Staff are told to ignore errors in people's records to save time and ensure call targets are met, the woman has told ITV's Tonight programme.

Queries sent in by post often disappear or are thrown in the bin, without being looked at by revenue staff, it is also claimed.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0NUd4U9SU


Taking On the Taxman: Tonight will be shown tonight at 8pm on ITV1.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0NUdEwCYU



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rgets.html