recovery implies that HMRC don't consider them grossly unfair, or else fairness is considered irrelevant within the remit of the administering department. HMRC's primary purpose is collection of taxes, perhaps this is part of the problem?
the decision in these cases is to retrospectively disentitle a person by DEEMING them disentitled, whether or not they actually were entitled, and the decision DEEMS the claimant to owe HMRC an enforceable debt. There is provision in legislation for £300+ penalties for non-provision of info, but such 'overpayments' may be 10 times that amount or more. i'm looking at one now for £4139.
If it was intended that HMRC should obtain such sums from tax credit claimants, and its difficult to see any rationale for it, when it conflicts with the primary purpose of the tax credit legislation (support for low income families, towards the objective of reducing child poverty), wouldn't it be explicitly stated in primary legislation? and wouldn't section 28 refer to when a person receives more than he is entitled to, or deemed entitled to under section whatever (that they never say)?
interestingly, HMRC in demanding £4000+ because she didn't return an annual declaration within 30 days took 5 months after they received the claimants incomplete annual declaration to write out to her again, having already made a provisional award, which was never disrupted. Claimants have no recollection of receiving it, and state they woiuld have responded immediately if they had. It was then 2 years before they wrote to them (took any action) demanding money.
part of the problem seems to be that there is no actual decision on overpayment and recovery by humans - there is a computer program and an input procedure instructing which buttons to press.
|