It takes a lot to shock me when it comes to tax credits, but still they manage it.

I'm not particularly looking for advice - I intend on referring the matter back to the MP who has been assisting, and have also spoken to our social policy people. I just wanted to share. I hope if other people can be annoyed by this I can calm down...

I have a case that dates back to 2004. Client was overpaid because they gave her a disabled child element incorrectly. I wasn't working here when the case started but a colleague took the case and we argued it was there mistake, that the client had mental health problems and is a lone parent on IS, and requested that they not recover.

For 2 years they argued it was her fault - until we finally got the copy of the original form from them. She had filled the form in correctly. They paid £60 compensation for the failure to provide the form - but still insist she pay back £1800. They state she should reasonably have known she was being overpaid.

For the next 2 years not a single letter will acknowledge that she has mental health problems, that we have sent medical evidence, etc. For the last year all letters have gone through the MP.

Last week the client came in with a letter (sent to the MP in November). The first ever reference to her mental health problems, and it made my jaws drop :

"I should explain that whilst XXXXX was completing her tax credits claim form, she should also have read our TC600 notes which accompany the claim form. Pages 8 and 37 of the TC600 notes explain that if a customer is unable to control their own affairs then they should nominate an appointee to act on their behalf. Due to the fact that XXXXX did not nominate an appointee, I am unable to overturn our decision to recover her overpayment."

This is from the special section who deal with MP's. The ones who actually read the letters and respond properly rather than sending out form letters. The ones they use to make them look better than they really are when the MP's contact.

I don't know where to start...
*Failure to spot an HMRC error does not necessarily equal inability to cope with ones own affairs (she made one small error - they made multiple serious errors over 4 years. She's doing much better than they are !)
*Someone who is not capable at the time of noticing an error in a maximum 8 page award may not actually be able to cope with reading a 50 page booklet, they may also not realise that they are incapable
*If someone with mental health problems should have had an appointee but was to ill to realise this and arrange it then surely the "reasonable to realise" (still the rule at the time of this overpayment) should still take into account their individual circumstances ?
*This is a wonderful Catch 22 argument by which no case could ever be written off due to mental health problems.

What planet do these people live on ?

Victoria

I share your frustrations.

Does she fit in to the new COP26?

I've just had a letter from HMRC (we had taken the complaint to the Adjudicators Office) stating that they have applied the new guidance to my clients case and they will now not be seeking to recover the overpayment of £980. The overpayment arose in 2004-2005 and was due to HMRC error.

Regards

Nicky

Mon 17-Mar-08 11:36 AM by Victoria J

Don't know if she fits the new COP26 - the best responses so far have been through the MP who is very supportive, so we're currently sticking to that.

The Social Policy people at the central office say they're still arguing for a complete write off of all old overpayments - to "restore confidence" and because those under the least clear rules, with the least clear awards etc. (which were acknowledged to be in need of change) also got the harshest rules about overpayment, and the least full system for challenge.

Does anyone know what the guidance on pages 8 and 37 was ? The current version has information about appointees on page 9 (how to know if you already are an appointee) and page 52 (what an appointee is and isn't, responsibilities of an appointee). There isn't anything about how to know if you need an appointee or what you would do if you want one. It's all aimed at the appointee (which is rather more sensible than the response given because it's probably the case that if you're reading the notes and managing your affairs to that extent you don't need an appointee anyway).

Victoria J

Victoria

I have a 2004 version of the notes. Page 8 has some appointee info about how to know if your already an appointee (and the wording is directed to the appointee not the claimant)

Pg 37 has nothing re appointees - it is about income. Pg 47 is the only other page (and is referred to by Pg 8). It is essentially telling the appointee (again not the claimant) what boxes to fill in etc..

It sounds much like the current version, I cannot see anything for the claimant.

If you want a copy email me at victoriatodd28@yahoo.co.uk and I can send as a PDF.

Victoria