I have a client who is being chased by the Tax Credit Office for a large overpayment on her joint claim. This has been caused by her ex husband failing to send in his declaration to finalise the last period of the joint claim, thus making all the payments in the last period into overpayments. My client sent in her declaration to finalise the joint claim.

This seems very unfair, as my client has completely complied with the Tax Office requirements, but the ex hasn't. I know they have written to both parties about the recovery of the overpayment, but I doubt they will get much response from the ex, whereas my client is working, and thus a much more attractive proposition.

I've tried quoting paras CCM 8260 and 8290 from their Customer Compliance Manual at them, which relate to settlement where one member of a couple is an innocent party, but the TCO has responded saying these paras relate purely to fraudulent activity, and cannot be applied to my client's situation.

This all seems very unfair on my client. Has anyone got any ideas?

Would CCM14215 have applied? It's now been removed from the manual but i've used it successfully in a couple of cases.

Thanks for this - it's still in the online version of the manual so I'll try it. Sorry not to have responded sooner, I didn't get a message to say I'd had any responses.

I am alarmed (if not surprised) to read from this thread that the Revenue regard the compliance manual to be the preserve of fraud etc. It most certainly is not. Compliance is about investigating claims or awards that may not be correct, and much of the manual describes outcomes and processes that are not fraud related. I think this response by the Revenue is a way of not doing what they should be doing in such cases. You could also try referring the Revenue to page 8 of the current COP 26, which also provides for uneven recovery, in joint claim cases.

Best wishes

Steve

Hi Steve

Many thanks for this - you've confirmed what I thought with regard to the CCM. I have also got the stuff on p8 of COP26, which I'm also going to use with the Adjudicator.

Chris.