Fri 11-Dec-09 08:24 AM by shawn
this is very good news. and how interesting that it has been announced, virtually hidden in plain sight, in the pre-budget report. imho, HMRC's overpayment recovery policy has been unlawful from the get-go, and is indefensible - hence no cases being allowed to go to court. i have no doubt that HMRC has come under sustained pressure from many and various sources - i imagine it all counts in the end, and i would be very surprised if the looming election hasn't focussed ministers minds to the point where they have seen the necessity of piercing the miasma of obfuscation and lunacy woven by this department, to peer into reality and the world of reason. i would like to believe that they have decided to put it right for the right reasons...: )
Despite the personableness of individual members of staff, for whom i have some sympathy, i have found it difficult to conclude other than that the organisational entity which is HMRC is arrogant, out of control and psychotically insane. i'm not surprised that there are websites on t'internets with titles like 'Tax Credit Victims', or even 'HMRC are *****'. it has been robbing tax-credit claimants for 5 years, as well as sabotaging the tax credit scheme and its important role in reducing child poverty. and although i'm happy that i can now drop one of my long-standing obsessions, i expect that we have a way to go yet...!!!
i can't help wondering whether Novitskaya v London Borough of Brent & Anor <2009> EWCA Civ 1260 (01 December 2009) had any influence on this policy reversal?
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1260.html
this helpful decision supports a number of crucial principles which imo have application to HMRC as well as the DWP - i wont quote extensively, but a couple of paragraphs deserve an airing here - : ) -
>>>Social security legislation is enacted primarily for the benefit of social security claimants.>>> opening of para 10
>>>The holding on this point in Kerr is a reflection of the fact that the distribution of benefits is different from many other areas of civil law. It is concerned not simply with recognising rights or enforcing liabilities but also with sustaining members of the community whom Parliament has decided should be sustained through the welfare state.>>> para 25
see also paras 15 and 21.
This decision, like Kerr itself, is very welcome. It doesn’t imo reflect any new approach in the social security field, but re-affirms explicitly an older established approach, which has become eroded/corrupted by new admin and management systems, and IT methods (and corresponding loss of knowledge and skills) etc etc.
just in case anyone thinks i go too far with 'psychotically insane', i kid you not, i discovered yesterday morning that the phone number for HMRC Solicitors' Office has been withdrawn from the public domain!!! ( I needed a fax number - Ravi Low-Beer of the Public Law Project has put a lot of hard, and frustrating work in on this issue, and had drafted a complex LBA.) After about two hours of hapless googling, and telephoning around, HMRC, after interrogating me as to my purpose, eventually deigned to provide me with the fax number, but refused to disclose the telephone number, which really has been removed from the public domain.
to be continued, no doubt...
but three cheers for now! : )
|