I am looking for some information regarding formal decisions in the case of over payment. My client's situation is breifly as follows:

Client applied for TCs in Aug 03. At the time she was single parent, low income. Her boyfriend moved in with her and she did not inform the IR as she did not think it was important as he was claiming IB and would not have increased the income above the limit at which she needed to inform them (2.5K increase).

The IR have now discovered her boyfriend lives with her and have cancelled the whole award of TCs on the basis of failure to disclose and have sent her a threatening demand for the whole award, giving her 30days to pay. They have also asked for the details of her car, house, and proof that she has tried to obtain a bank loan to cover the amount. My first question is whether this letter constitutes a decision? She has had no formal decision or break down of dates, amounts, etc. This letter does not give her any right to appeal.

I am also concerned that the IR have demanded back the whole award. I assumed the the correct amount (which would be worked out on her correct circumstances) would be ofset against the amount that she had recieved and that the overpayment should be calculated in the same way as one would be for IS. Does anyone know if this should be the case?

I would be very grateful if anyone could tell me what the correct proceedure should be for this, and whether the IR have an obligation to provide a formal decision notice, with appeal rights?

The decision on entitlement would carry a right of appeal. You don't say when the boyfriend moved in, but it seems likely that there was some part of the period after the claim and before he did so when entitlement should be preserved. An appeal (if there is still time)could protect that entitlement. But there is no appeal against the decisions that there was an overpayment, or that it is recoverable, or that it has to be repaid.

The main problem though is that becoming part of a couple terminates a claim made by a single person, and separating terminates a joint claim made by a couple (TCA s3). Unless there is a new claim (joint claim as a couple in your clients case) there is no entitlement after that termination. A new joint claim now could be backdated of course, but only for three months. That still leaves a huge gap, and I can see no way of establishing any entitlement in respect of that period.

You seem to be saying that your client accepts that she did indeed become a member of a couple, and so maybe doesn't want to appeal against the entitlement decision on the grounds that in fact she is not cohabiting; but I think we are going to see hundreds of cases in which this sort of decision is made where the cohabitation status is bitterly contested. This will exacerbated by the IR's apparent ignorance of - or perhaps conscious policy of ignoring - Social Security case law on the interpretation of the phrase "living together as husband and wife". People in this situation will be able to appeal the entitlement decision which incorporates the cohabitation decision, and no doubt some of them will win. But while the appeal is going on they may not be willing or able to make a new joint claim, and will be desparately hard up. Or they may be forced into a closer relationship than they actually want with the alleged partner.

It's called support for children and families, folks.

Thank you very much, that has cleared it up. Looks like it will be bad news for the client then. Will have to appeal to them on the grounds of hardship to try to get the Overpayment due reduced.

Thanks again.

just a minute...!!!!

did you say the inland revenue demanded evidence that she'd tried to get a bank loan in order to pay her tax credit back to them?

jj

Yes, outrageous!

This is exactly what was said - "should you be unable to pay the total due in full, you will be expected to provide evidence that you have tried to obtain either a personal loan ora loan secured on your property or assets."

The also enclosed a form asking for details or bank account for her family, the value of her house, and the make, model and year of her car!!

I think all of this social engineering via benefit decision making and nasty or just incomprehensible letters is very very potent.

I've never understood a letter from the Inland Revenue regarding tax credits. I'm now happy I haven't.

That letter is more than a 'social policy concern', it's surely an MP job, it's a question in the house matter. It is not conducive to calling a society civil by any measure. It is a bleeding disgrace.

The only trouble is, my client's local MP is Tony Blair!

Is this what's called compassionate conservatism ?

he'll love it! a chance to beat up brown!

seriously, this isn't on, is it? this is unprecedented bullying of the weak and vulnerable by the state. Blair has asked the country to judge him by public services, so his response would be very interesting.

let me see...the inland revenue, having sucked in responsibility for child benefit, and national insurance, in addition to it's newly gifted tax credit empire, will soon be merging with Customs & Excise of 'i'm impounding your car 'cos i can' and corrupt drug -deal trial fame. i guess they won't be going for the mother theresa image... ?


looks like they're going for the classic pincer movement. jobcentreplus does it's damnedest to get everybody, including those on their sick-beds, and those washing their dirty sheets, to take minimum pay jobs.

the inland revenue, busily screwing up people's contribution and credit records so that it can have a good laugh when people claim their pension somewhere between the age of 70 and 80 probably, don't have to attempt to work out CTC or WTC correctly, secure in the knowledge that there's a bunch of poor suckers providing a safety net for _its_ failings. Every last penny of employer's subsidy oops, tax credit overpaid, can be screwed out of them, with interest. And there's no need to be particular in the slightest about calculating the overpayment, because the suckers have no right to an explanation, much less an appeal, and in fact, nobody's quite sure how to calculate it anyway, so that's alright. and the morality of carelessly demanding payments of several thousands of pounds that might not even be owed, nevermind why they should be repaid, from the vulnerable and poor, is permanently off the agenda.

and don't worry about the tribunals because we got ourselves a new friendly department of constitutional affairs, and the fix is in...

and, having armed the revenue with handy weapons in the area of burden and standards of proof - (the citizen has to prove himself innocent beyond reasonable doubt)... what might in fact turn out to be the best wheeze yet, is that due to the rules on claims, the overpayments are calculated on TECHNICALITIES, not underlying ENTITLEMENT!!!. it's brilliant! This means that money can be recovered, with menaces, even where there has been no loss to the public purse! in a couple of years, i expect the revenue will be so good at this, they will be able to turn the tax credit system into a net profit situation for the Treasury.

hold on, this doesn't sound like a pincer, or even thumbscrews. iron maiden at least, and more likely, a crusher!

meanwhile, tony blair and michael howard are outvisioning each other on paying parents to take time to look after new babies. it might be the only time to get to know their kids, because pretty soon, they'll have to attend upto 10 hours a day childcare facilities while their folks are busy focusing on work. this is a huge extention of education education education, and one assumes, any little blighter turning out to be a deviant after several years of 10 hours a day state-subsidised imput will jolly well deserve all the asbos he gets.

you might detect i've had a bit of a rubbish week. garbage in- garbage out!

: )

jj

Yeah but just because you've had a rubbish week doesn't mean you're wrong. And you're not. You're just a little bit too right actually.

there are so many problems with tax credit, it seems like we have to reinvent the wheel all over again. even things like making their manuals public, which was an on-going battle for some time, with the DSS, i believe. somebody somewhere probably has copies of all sorts of useful correspondence with the DWP, and it's difficult to see how an opposite stance could be sustained by the IR.

i think we are handicapped by not being organized, but it occurs to me that an approach by CPAG, LASA etc to the PCS, the civil servants union might be fruitful. the DSS Group has worked with a coalition of welfare rights organizations in the past, under the umbrella 'Action for Benefits'. Since then, the Inland Revenue Staff Federation have merged with the union. I think it's probably organized in seperate DWP and IR groups. the advantage is that these groups have direct negotiating access at national level to DWP and IR management. it's a thought anyway...

jj

This seems to be fairly standard IR practice. The Guardian Saturday before last had a piece about people who had successfully complained to the Adjudicator about the special compliance unit's behaviour when investigating their income tax position. The abridged version on their website -

http://talk.workunlimited.co.uk/guardian_jobs_and_money/story/0,3605,1344367,00.html

doesn't include it, but one of the people interviewed said that when he turned up for an interview, the officer asked him if he had arranged a bank loan yet. He asked what he was talking about and was told he was going to need one because of the large tax bill that was coming. If I remember correctly, he turned out not to owe any tax at all - certainly only a fraction of what the taxstapo were demanding.

Maybe we should remember the origins of tax departments in all countries at all times. Rulers simply sent out their armed men to find out what the population had, and take it off them. Hardly the most appropriate heritage for a department with an income maintenance role. But even modern parliamentarians seem to think it is. Steve Webb on the Today programme today was there to talk about the latest developments in the EDS & CSA fiasco, and was advocating the abolition of the CSA (no don't cheer yet) and handing over the function to the IR on the grounds - wait for it - that they are good at getting money out of people. The part about the passing it on to those who need it and are entitled to it didn't get a mention. Can't think why.

Its probably a bit early for a Friday type rant and I'm sorry, but its my first day back after a long weekend visiting comrades in Germany, where weirdly similar things are starting to happen to their Social Security system too, and I'm well and truly fed up.

I could be wrong - often am, but I believe the IR do not use the DWP definition of LTAHAW - they quite specifically use the IR's definition of couples. Which is a bit different as far as I remember. And different versus marrieds and unmarrieds.

Might be a challenge in that, but for better or worse?

It may be a bit circular, but as I understand it the IR SHOULD be using the Social Security approach to cohabitation, as developed by case law.

They simply define an unmarried couple as "a man and a woman who are not a married couple but are living together as husband and wife." (s3(6)TCA). I'm not aware of a specific definition in Tax Credits specifically or tax legislation generally of the phrase "living together as husband and wife" which changes the accepted SS case law; so I think it should have the same meaning as in Social Security legislation. Does anyone else know of a definition specifically for tax or TCs?

But like you I also believe they don't (even though they should)use the SS definition - and that is one of the problems!

Try

http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/manuals/ccmmanual/CCM6000.htm