[BBC News]Rates non-payers could be named

[John Wright]

Peel always used to do it. Publish the names that is.

 

And rent arrears?

 

And just what provision of the Data Protection Act says no?

 

I'll tell you, none. As usual its just an excuse.

[Pat Ayres]

I paid monthly, that is to say I paid 10% of my rates every month for 10 months.

I left my flat 6 mts into the year, therefore I had made 6 payments of my rates. = 60% in 50% of the year.

the government owe me 10% of the rates total, £52.12p.

I name and shame them as they owe me 10% of my rates and have done for 2mths.

[Albert Tatlock]

IMHO, they cannot publish names for 'alleged non-payment' of rates, but only when people have been found in breach of a civil offence of non-payment - which would then become a proven matter of official record. Under the DPA who would be the actual publisher anyway - the organisation or individual stating the 'allegations' or the newspaper running the 'allegations', or both? I suspect this is why there are not ads in the paper every week saying 'Joe Bloggs' owes me £300 (other than those linked to official pending court actions which are official records).

 

Just one mistake and all concerned would be sued (there are lots of reasons why people can't pay their rates e.g. illness, mentally ill, living abroad 5 months of the year, recently moved to a home, mail lost or not forwarded etc.). I think they are posturing, in the hope they can recover at least 20% of what's outstanding. Perhaps they'd get even more if they did a better job of running Ramsey, without coming out with stupid uninformed statements like this - but there again what else would you expect in an election year?

 

If it was that simple they'd have just published the names already.