Hi Emma,
I am interested in the implication that hardship is not really intended as a write off criteria. I have 3 points to support this idea.
1) Look at COP 26. Notice that hardship is only tagged on to the "may not" recover ground, and does not appear in the relatively stronger "will not" or "would not" recover sections.
2) Again, COP 26. Look at the third para on page 3 of COP 26. it says..."contact us if:
the reduced payments cause you or your family hardship, or
you think a possible overpayment should not be recovered
This is a bit confusing because this part of COP 26 is discussing in year overpayments, which are not challengeable in terms of recoverability. Possibly the IR are envisaging correcting factual erors, but in any case hardship and recoverability are separated.
3) The TC846 overpayment appeal form does not refer to hardship.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I put it to you that hardship was never intended to be aground for challenging recoverability!
If this is so, and you are right about it's possible role simply to stagger repayment, then it's probably only worth bothering with if clients want to pay over longer periods, or wants Additional Payments (where hardship pops up again in COP 26).
What do you think?
Steve
|