Entitlement to the 50+ element only lasts for 12 months.

Because annual reviews don't happen until some months afte the end of the year then, as far as I can tell, anybody who has a 50+ element included in their WTC award is guaranteed to overpaid for the provisional assessment period in the following tax year, and for the part of the previous year if the award started part way throught the year before that.

E.g. 1 (real client)

Client started work in December 2004 and claimed WTC with 50+ element in April 2005. In august 2006, client's claim reconciled. No longer entitled to 50+ element, which ends entitlement. April-August 2006 overpaid and nothing the client could have done to prevent it.

E.g. 2

Client started work December 2004 and claimed WTC with 50+ element in January 2005. August 2005, claims reconciled and award continues. August 2006 and claims reconciled. 50+ element ended January 2006 and no further entitlement so claim overapid from January-August 2006.

In the latter example, there's a possibilty that the TCO will only award the 05-06 provisional assessment for the relevant period January 2005-April 2006 so easing up the problem here; but for 50+ elements beginning early in the tax year I can't see how this overpayment can be avoided (unless the award is underpaid in some way).

It's true that the knowledgable and discerning client could request a review of the award to remove the 50+ element, but it's not uncommon for me to hear client's say they tried that (for a varitey of CoC's)only to be erroneously told by the helpline that their award cannot be changed until the end of the year.


I haven't searched the forum so don't know if anyone else has posted up this problem, but I'd be interested to know if ayone else has come across it, or even if you think I've made a mistake somewhere.

Thanks,

I've no experience of these cases. Does what you suggest actually happen? If so, it seems somewhat absurd. Surely it would have been a relatively simple matter for TCO to have programmed their computer so that the 50+ element was automatically stopped a year after it started? Or does that imply a level of commonsense and competence that was beyond the EDS(?) people who set the system up?

This is madness.

We know the computer is capable of being age sensitive. One of the November 2006 change of circs that must be reported is the cessation of a young person being a 'qualifying young person'. The only time you don't need to report this, is when the young person becomes 20.

Its like all that social security case law discussion about failing to tell a benefit authority something they already know. Accordingly, this must be an official Revenue error. Could the claimant have been aware of this error? Would a ressonable claimant be expected to know that the precious computer is able to know a member of your family is 20, but unable to know the claim has been running one year?

Got to be worth a run via a TC846.

What do you think?

Steve

Yes, this did actually happen Derek, to a client I saw last Thursday, whose circumstances match example 1 in my original post.

Steve, I have advised the client to continue challenging the decision by way of a complaint to the Adjudicator's office and Ombudsman. A request for non-recovery has already been refused.

I'm not assisting the client as she is able to help yourself - in fact I was very impressed with the knowledge she has acquired and the work she has done so far. I was able to find some other things for her to challenge, this being just one.

It would be interesting to find out what percentage of claims including a 50+ element are overpaid in comparison to the proportion of all claims overpaid.

If anyone else has come across this issue, please let us know.

Tony

Could try asking clients MP to ask this question in the House. Would be interesting to see if the Revenue keeps data like this.

Steve

Mmmmm. My "somewhat absurd" comment was clearly just that! I suppose I should have learnt by now never to underestimate the capacity of this system to do things which ordinary mortals using commonsense would never do! In these circumstances, how TCO can pretend that a claimant could reasonably be expected to know they were being overpaid is totally beyond me. Definitely one for the Adjudicator and MP - assuming the MP is half way competent and not in thrall to Gordon et al for a job in the next few months (or is that too cynical?).

Not so Derek. All the 50+ cases that LITRG has had the privilege of dealing with have been inappropriately dealt with by HMRC. Off the top of my head we have had all the errors written off, but I could not be 100% or 50 + certain.

John