I could do with some advice (or at least reassurance that I'm not missing anything).
Have a c whose partner left her 2005. She spent @the next 18months not informing HMRC of this and filling in annual decs that they still a couple.

Eventually informed them when a tenancy support worker got involved due to rent arrears.

This led to o/p of over £5000 on 2 CTC awards due to not informing ch of circs.

I've been arguing for over yr that no loss to public purse (in fact the taxpayer has "won", as she also didn't claim IS for herself for the same period, meaning @£3500 benefit being unclaimed), English as 2nd language, a woman with no experience of ben system as partner used to do this, social isolation etc.

It's gone to the MP and back, but HMRC refusing to write off. Their reply to the MP says that their process does not allow discretion to be applied (?!). They refer to the revised COP26.

I keep asking them to use their discretion on hardship grounds, due to the effects this time of financial hardship has had and is still having on her and her 2 children. I also mention the length of time it would take her to re-pay, but a stock reply always comes back that if will cause hardship, need to talk to the Payment Helpline.

My questions are:
1/ Am I fighting a losing battle - it's clear that she didn't "fulfil her responsibilities" at least with a narrow reading of COP26. I've tried quoting CCM15630 re putting oneself in the claimant's shoes when considering reasonableness. However as this refers to making a correct claim and not about ch of circs - anybody know if this might work?

2/ If not, any point carrying on to AO/Ombudsman - any prospect may get a different response there?

3/ Discretion on hardship grounds. Am I right I in thinking that (in practice at least), it is the Payments Helpline section that apply this discretion (and this is why CSU saying they have no discretion)?
If this is correct, do I need to give up on the complaints process before I can get it to the section that can consider applying discretion?

Two words: "Good" "Luck"!

It sounds that your just fighting the same ol' battle we've all been doing for the last five years.

I would keep at it, but I think I might try again with the MP. Has s/he not realised that the reply from TCO contains a statement that is demonstrably unlawful? Discretion should exercised reasonably. Failing to do so, or to exercise it at all, renders that decision amenable to judical review.

I would ask the MP to take a much more pro-active stance - especially as they've apparently been conned themselves. I had report back via the ministers office from my MP recently and it was quite pathetic and failed to deal with any of the substantive issues of the complaint. MP accepted it at face value. Maybe MP's just dont' want to look at tax credits, or maybe they don't even read the stuff. Either way, I will keep sending them back.

It might also be worth pointing out how much the work on the case has cost the public purse, and how much it is likely to cost (plus the additional costs to HMRC, the AO and the ombudsman). I don't hesitate putting four figure numbers down, especially when you think about. High cost figures are justifiable by the consistently poor administration of tax credits and the fact that it often takes at least two complaint letters to get a decent and fathomable reply from HMRC... blah blah blah...

I would also consider asking PLP to help with a letter of claim - that might just prompt the TCO to be a bit more realistic?

I've had some success with the AO before in reducing overpayments, but my experience of their service questions thier impartiality. More annoyingly, they refuse to deal with complaints where TCO has failed to reply (even where the subject of the complaint is the lack of a reply). I think the AO and the ombudsman might only consider if the right decisioon is reached in accordance with the COP26, etc and can't/won't do any discretionary writing off (although they might suggest it to TCO?).

As I say, good luck!

keep on keeping on - gordon brown agrees -

"It's why when things get tough, we get tougher.

We stand up, we fight hard - for fairness.

We don't give in, and we never will."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7631925.stm

thanks Tony for the tips on strategy, I feel the last year is only the begining of this...thanks both for your encouragement.

CPAG were looking for cases like this that they could take on and use as test cases.

Don't know if they still are but might be worth enquiring.