Our client came to see us on Fri 27 July 2007 and we identified he had incorrectly omitted to claim childcare costs in his claim for tax credits in the award year 2006-07. We called the helpline. They told us that if he sent information in a letter straight away, to be received by the end of July 2007, they would accept his claim - they couldn't do it by fax or phone. He wrote the letter and posted it 1st class - with proof of postage - on Sat 28 July. So it should have arrived on Mon 30 July. TCO say they did not receive it until Wed 1st August and so cannot include childcare costs in his claim.

1. Is anyone aware of any helpful caselaw about what a client must do to be treated as meeting these kinds of deadlines?

2. In the absence of definitive caselaw, can anyone suggest a good line of argument for us when we ask TCO to reconsider and pay our client the childcare costs?

Thanks for reading!

TR

Hi,

Does your client have evidence of the date his letter was received? I find that often agencies count the date that they process it rather than the date that it was received in their office (which is the date I would expect them to use).

As he sent it recorded delivery he should be able to get proof from Royal Mail of when it was delivered and signed for, although I'm not sure how long these records are available for. For recent items (and I'm aware that this is not) delivery can be checked on Royal Mail's website.

Hope this helps.

Mairi

I wonder if you can pray in aid the court rules on service by post? deemed service 2 days after posting....unless there's some tax credit rule about receipt....

And again, unless there's some tax credit rule about receipt, the Interpretation Act might apply. An example where the Act has no application can be found in R(G) 2/06. Section 7 states: -


"Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post".

Which, as Claire says, is 2 days.

Which, however, is a rebuttable presumption, so if there is evidence that it was not actually delivered within that period, the presumption cannot help you. At present they are saying it wasn't: have they shown you a copy of the document date-stamped with a date of receipt at the post-processing office (not, as has already been pointed out) the bit of the office that actually dealt with the notification possibly days after the actual receipt into the building or by an agency acting on behalf of HMRC?

Thanks very much for your helpful replies, and apologies for not responding sooner!