It takes a lot to shock me when it comes to tax credits, but still they manage it.
I'm not particularly looking for advice - I intend on referring the matter back to the MP who has been assisting, and have also spoken to our social policy people. I just wanted to share. I hope if other people can be annoyed by this I can calm down...
I have a case that dates back to 2004. Client was overpaid because they gave her a disabled child element incorrectly. I wasn't working here when the case started but a colleague took the case and we argued it was there mistake, that the client had mental health problems and is a lone parent on IS, and requested that they not recover.
For 2 years they argued it was her fault - until we finally got the copy of the original form from them. She had filled the form in correctly. They paid £60 compensation for the failure to provide the form - but still insist she pay back £1800. They state she should reasonably have known she was being overpaid.
For the next 2 years not a single letter will acknowledge that she has mental health problems, that we have sent medical evidence, etc. For the last year all letters have gone through the MP.
Last week the client came in with a letter (sent to the MP in November). The first ever reference to her mental health problems, and it made my jaws drop :
"I should explain that whilst XXXXX was completing her tax credits claim form, she should also have read our TC600 notes which accompany the claim form. Pages 8 and 37 of the TC600 notes explain that if a customer is unable to control their own affairs then they should nominate an appointee to act on their behalf. Due to the fact that XXXXX did not nominate an appointee, I am unable to overturn our decision to recover her overpayment."
This is from the special section who deal with MP's. The ones who actually read the letters and respond properly rather than sending out form letters. The ones they use to make them look better than they really are when the MP's contact.
I don't know where to start... *Failure to spot an HMRC error does not necessarily equal inability to cope with ones own affairs (she made one small error - they made multiple serious errors over 4 years. She's doing much better than they are !) *Someone who is not capable at the time of noticing an error in a maximum 8 page award may not actually be able to cope with reading a 50 page booklet, they may also not realise that they are incapable *If someone with mental health problems should have had an appointee but was to ill to realise this and arrange it then surely the "reasonable to realise" (still the rule at the time of this overpayment) should still take into account their individual circumstances ? *This is a wonderful Catch 22 argument by which no case could ever be written off due to mental health problems.
What planet do these people live on ?
Victoria
|