Client was claimaing as a couple with her husband. They then separate. An o/p occurs, probably because of either a delay in telling TCO about the separation or because TCO were slow in stopping payment.

Client comes to me about the o/p. I write to TCO for more details with the client's signed authority.

TCO have sent the authority back to the client insisting that husband must also sign it because it was a joint claim.

I'm not instructed by the husband, and I think there's a clear conflict of interest because we may end up trying to persuade them to recover the WTC from him, as it was paid by his employer. I don't think I could accept instructions even if he wanted me to act.

Anyone got any ideas about how to deal with joint claims if the claimants have now separated?

I have been asked on several occasions for authority from the other member of a joint claim and have questioned the requirement for this with TCO. Legislation makes both members of the couple jointly and severally liable for any overpayments, therefore one partner is entitled to information, without needing consent from the other partner. If they insist authority is needed from both of the couple you tell them that they can only then make your client liable for half the overpayment.

Complain! Can't stress enough that the more we all complain means hopefully we'll eventually get better service. We can but hope anyway!

In the meantime for something like this I would involve our local MP's office, one phone call from them seems to clear up matters like this.

Does anyone know a way around this one yet? TCO seem happy to talk over the phone about an old joint claim, with one half of couple present, but won't deal with correspondence from us without both signatures on an authorisation.

This will be discussed...........(again)........at the Consultation Group next week.

It is a nonsense. It is being challenged.

A signature from the other partner is such a no-brainer in all sorts of circumstances that I will not detain this forum.

Let us hope HMRC eventually become introduced into the real world.

John

Hi John,

As I am sure you know, s31 of the Act deals with incorrect statements, which can lead to punishments. s31(3) allows an 'innocent partner' defence to a penalty. Therfore the law recognises that there may be conflicts between partners/ex partners in terms of recovery of penalties. The potential for such a conflict is also implicit in s28(4), which allows uneven recovery of overpayments.

If the law can handle this idea, why can't our colleagues at the Revenue, when it comes to authorities to act?

Good luck at the meeting.

Steve

In the case that I was dealing with when I started this thread, I wrote to the TCO pointing out that we could not act for the husband as there was a potential conflict of interest. They accepted that and dealt with the issue without his authority. They clearly can see sense if its explained to them carefully.

"They clearly can see sense if its explained to them carefully"

Sometimes. Depends on the person who happens to be dealing with it at the time?