the above works ok where you have a clear overpayment decision (amount, period and how it arose), restrictions on the powers of recovery, a right of appeal, and an independant adjudication process.
we can be sure that once upon a time some scruples about the morality of enforcing repayment from poor people who would experience further hardship, must have existed.
the restrictions on power of recovery have variously been in the areas of 'good faith', 'due care and diligence', 'misrepresentation/failure to disclose' and official errors, prior to any need for the exercise of discretion in the matter of recovery. and where recovery is required, repayment by installment is allowed, with legal restrictions on the weekly amount, as a percentage of benefit income, with discretion for lower amounts to be negotiated.
with the tax credit system, there is no right of appeal against the overpayment decision itself and no restrictions on the powers of recovery, including official errors. there is a discretion, which is not exercised unless representations are made, if i understand correctly. recovery can be made by reducing the current tax credit entitlement or altering the tax code, and from what i am seeing, just stopping the payments whilst the Inland Revenue looks into things and makes a decision. (leaving aside what the I R can do via the courts if it wants to get really nasty).
in addition, it can impose penalties if it decides an offence has been committed. (this could be signing a review form which has incorrect information on it). It can mitigate the penalties at its discretion - say down from £1000 to £300, and it expects immediate payment of penalties, unlike the overpayment which it wants to have paid back within three years. it has difficulties providing comprehensible and accurate award notices, even when information has been correctly provided, and contact with the IR is via an under-resourced call centre, which can only access claim information which has been put onto the computer system, and it cannot give out telephone numbers so that you can speak to the person you need to speak to.
the decision on whether there has been an overpayment or offence in some cases, is made at the end of an enquiry or examination interview, by the person who has actively participated in the interrogation which he/she had prepared for beforehand, in the role of investigator. if the findings are disputed, the IR can require proof from the claimant, eg to show that she was NOT living with her husband, and say things like - it must be official documents and they won't accept statements from relatives ie the onus is on the claimant to prove a negative, and they get to dictate what evidence they will or will not accept.
have i lost the plot already?
jj
|