I spoke to a manage at TCO today regarding my client who was denied the opportunity to claim tax credits.

I was told that new(ish) guidance means that claims cannot be initiated until the DWP have passed details of new NINO's to HMRC. They refuse point-blank to entertain a claim. This is despite the fact that there is no such restriction for claiming in the law and in fact that law allows for claims for those without a NINO in some circs (though see an earlier post of mine for PSIC partners with no NINO.

If my client is already entitled to max three months backdating then he is losing money by being denied his right to claim now.

This is yet another example of how HMRC flout their responsibilities in law whilst continuing to welly client's that don't (allegedly) meet thier own.

Strong words follow...

Oh, and while we're on the subject of HMRC, I spoke to a very nice and highly experienced person in the CB office recently. I was told that the move to HMRC from DWP is primarily responsible for the mess in CB administration (although my contact seems to think that things are picking up and the inordinate delays (over a year in some cases) should soon dissipate. Staff morale is very low.

it seems to me that HMRC have shown themselves unfit to administer the tax credit scheme. they have the wrong departmental culture for it - they are a revenues collection department, and the tax credit scheme is an expenditure measure. they don't get it, and from where i'm standing, can't get it. it also seems clear to me that although they were charged with working on the scheme in consultation with the the DWP, they were set on deffing the latter out, prolly an 'empire building' thing... at any rate, neither the incoherent legislation they drafted, nor the actualite of delivery indicates that they took a blind word of notice of anything the DWP advised them of. i don't think they have any excuse for claiming, as they later did, that they were taken by surprise by the large number of changes in circumstances this low income 'client group' has. the DWP had readily available figures at their disposal...

HMRC is a most peculiar department - no Sec of State and some sort of off-shoot of the Treasury, and it appears is simply unaccustomed to accounting for or explaining its actions...i've noticed in Hansard that a lot of parliamentary questions are not answered by ministers - MPs are referred to arcane published tables of statistics, or told that the information can only be obtained at disproportionate cost, or that HMRC does not collect the date requested. figures for the 'technical' overpayments that have so vexed us are not distinguished from overpayments which are true losses to public funds.

the customer service group for reps has been a big disappointment - still a bunch of 'cut and paste' stock answers, just more paragraphs than the norm, and no engagement with points made in the letter being replied to - they just ignore...

the denial of the right of appeal ensures that their decision-making, such as it is, remains in-house and unchallenged, and that they are free of the benefit of wiser counsel - that 'benefit', i'm certain, they would see only as a burder, and that is why they have steadfastly resisted, and deny that there is any breach of human rights...

in operating its overpayment recovery policy, HMRC has, without any checks on its legality, reversed the burden of proof, approaching the issue as tax collectors, not as decision-makers on statutory entitlement. According to the commentary to the Tax Credit Act 2002, the question arose in the passage of the Bill as to whether tax credits counted as public expenditure or as tax uncollected, and the answer (after disagreement about the right approach) was that they counted as public expenditure in so far as they exceed the income tax due from the claimant, and as negative taxation in so far as they do not. The ball park figure, used in debates, was that 90% was public expenditure, and 10 % was tax foregone. tax credits in the 1999 Act (WFTC) were classed as publiic expenditure.

nearly all the cases i've seen involve either maximum CTC because means-tested benefits is in payment to the parent(s), or minimum pay is involved. (it's what is known as an area of high deprivation. they got that right! ) HMRC's recovery policy + a system which is counter-intuitive and unfathomable, with special HMRC definitions of words like 'overpayment' and 'claim' which differ from the commonly understood meaning, mean that they effectively have replaced statutory entitlement to payments for children, with a repayable loan of tax credits. who knew?

the policy reversal on separated etc couples is of course welcome, but implementation is patchy, and i've even had a letter where they lie to me about 'changes in legislation' from January 2010.

I am just in the process of writing to the Director - i'm tired og messing about with customer service. this is a case which should have benefited from both the 'genuine mistake' about household status provision in COP 26 and the offset provisions from Jan 2010 - he benefitted from neither.

this is a single parent claiming CTC for his 3 children, and working tax credit - he works for minimum pay £5.80 an hour , 25 hrs a week. Re-married, his wife joined him from abroad in March last year. He received an enquiry form from HMRC in Feb this year, and wrote back straightaway telling them that they did not wish to make a joint claim because his wife's current status does not allow her recourse to public funds. He told them she is not working, and that he was only claiming for himself and the children. All very reasonable, but he had made the fatal mistake of not understanding that he had to report to HMRC information about a person he didn't wish to claim for and could not claim for, ( facts which would not have altered his entitlement in any way, even if he had told 'em), and for that heinous omission he received demands a month later, for just over £10,000 HMRC evidently think this is alright. i think they ought to be bothered about depriving people of payments intended to lift children out of poverty.

I came across this quote in a recent article by the great Noam Chomsky and though - HMRC! -
"People rightly want answers and they are not getting them, except from voices that tell tales that have some internal coherence, but only if you suspend disbelief and enter into their world of irrationality and deceit."

I'm thinking I should send a copy of my letter to HMRC to the select committee with a covering letter. maybe we should be calling for an independent judicial enquiry? what do others think?

TCO is a shambolic mess. How many years has it been going now, and still they cannot get it right. Giving HMRC control of "benefits" was the most incomprehensible and irresponsible act by any Government in the last 20 years. Tax Credits are a "benefit" and need administering by an agency with expertise in paying "benefits"...bring back the late lamented Benefits Agency!!!

the benefits agency was lamentable : )
but i do lament the DHSS break up.

this sham has been going on for far too long (maybe i have too!) the emphasis of 'security' over 'welfare' is destructive, and is at the philosophical heart of this problem with tax credit overpayments, although the reliance on IT is close to the root of the practical problems.

the 'technical' overpayments, created by non-compliance with claims and notification rules are trumping entitlement questions. an abstract, general fraud risk (which it can be inferred was the intent behind these rules) is the basis of recovery decisions, when the particulars of individual cases can _establish_ entitlement, and refute any question of fraud - to no avail it seems, when welfare is not the governing principle. " you have to pay all the money back because you broke a fraud prevention rule" (not because you committed fraud) mistakes the map for the territory and results in absurdity. the rules are part and parcel of the objective of ensuring that people receive their correct entitlement, not depriving them of it. it breaches every known principle of adjudication in welfare benefit law - no wonder HMRC daren't let the courts get their hands on their decisions.

as for designing a user-friendly accessible system with due regard to their equality duties - epic fail.

apologies for running off at the mouth again, john...i should not get so wound up by HMRC...I'm having one of my 'funny turns' today...

changing the subject slightly, i have to say that i feel very sorry for the staff working for HMRC...there are good people working there, they are under horrible pressure, and i have reason to believe they are badly used by the systems there. my rage is against the machine, not the staff - just wanted to make that clear.

Well I have an issue with some of the staff (this applies equally to DWP depts and LA's) who, in my experience, often communicate information and make decisions in a way which is far from impartial, judgemental and often discriminatory.

If the system, and those in it, were to consider entitlment questions wholly impartially and postively, instead of partially seeking to find ways to deny entitlement, then it would be so much better and more efficient.

hi tony

i couldn't agree more with your last paragraph. i don't disagree with your first paragraph either, but i'm fed up with the folks at the lower end of the food-chain always having to carry the can. in the absence of heads rolling at the top, i see little point in kicking the asses of those at the bottom. to turn things around, there needs to be an acknowledgement that 'its the system, stupid!' and i don't see it.
http://www.adviceuk.org.uk/projects-and-resources/projects/radical/ITSS

i don't know why anyone thought its a good idea to make access remote, and accessible only through a 'gateway' staffed by people with minimum knowledge, wholly reliant on screens, scripts and manual instructions. i am willing to make the positive assumption that staff employed within that system are abused by that system at least. imo it is a cruel and degrading treatment to make staff act as robots, when they are human beings.

i noticed in a recent search through Hansard that Dawn Primarolo in one of her sessions with the select committee referred to evidence that 'customers' preferred method of contact was through call centres, and i had to wonder if that result was obtained by giving a choice between dialling an 0845 number, being fired as a human cannonball through the window of your local (and soon to be closed?) tax office, or wading through a boggy moat inhabited by rodents of unusual size, to post a letter.