Received a letter today (letter is dated 30 March but that's another issue) from TCO Belfast enclosing copy correspondence sent to a client.

Client had asked for remission on hardship grounds; reply to client just recites the usual mantra "not our mistake you have to pay it back". No response to hardship submission at all - in the clients letter. But in the covering letter to me it says "As you have mentioned (client) may have difficulty in paying back this overpayment, I have forwarded all correspondence to our hardship department."

Never heard of a hardship department before - thought it was simply an integral part of the overpayment dispute if hardship was raised as one of the issues in the TC648. Perhaps this indicates some belated recognition that when hardship is raised they have a duty to consider it properly and can't simply rely on "not our fault gov" responses?

But I wonder: has anyone else had dealings with a hardship department? Anyone know where they are? Phone number? Is this just a pretence at consideration, or is there a real hardship department (in Belfast or elsewhere)? Can we get to them to make our case?

Was going to post this in the separated couples overpayments thread - which has gone on to more general hardship questions - and this client did separate in the year of the overpayment - but then it seemed to me that the hardship topic deserved a thread of its own - it could apply to those who've always been single or are still a couple - been overpaid while working and now sick or disabled, etc...

I have recently asked HMRC for a copy of their guidance on hardship, to see if there is a criteria which is applied when considering writing an overpayment off on hardship grounds.

As soon as a reply is received I shall let the forum know.

I have not heard of a 'hardship department' as such or a dedicated team dealing with such requests, but it is entirely possible that such a team may exist.

Victoria

(Low Incomes Tax Reform Group)

what are we dealing with, Gormenghast? : )

dunno about Titus, Jan, but it got a groan from me.

hiya gerry : )

i have a feeling HMRC could solve a big part of its overpayment problem with the scutiny? committee at a stroke if it acknowledged that its arcane and unrealistic claims regs for single/joint claims were part of the problem, and did something about it...

the rest might be solved by hammer blows to the computer system, whose decisions churn out insane demands for money, untouched by human brain, never mind heart...

i momentarily lapsed my concentration on the TC mess from Feb 2005 just now embroiled in...separated wife reconciles with husband - immediately reports change to revenue, in person at local tax office, where they complete joint claim (i think these days they tell TC claimants to P.O but in those days it was a shambles and they had to deal with the er...citizens). one week later, husband has to go abroad for family emergency, expects to be gone for 2 months, wife duly informs TCO - no decision yet on new claim, told her claim is suspended, payments stop. husbands mother very sick, he stays abroad, wife keeps ringing TCO, has claimed IS, has 4 children, pleads for payment, she is a single parent again (husband doesn't tell her what's happening, one reconciliation pretty much up the spout)...after many calls, they start to pay her by giro, in May 05. After 6 months, she goes to tax office to ask if payments can be made into her account, is told to make single claim, prove her identity, and in November, they make an award on the joint claim which ended the suspended single claim, and demand repayment of all the money they paid between may and November, some three and half grand...(has had a we did not make a mistake, and you should have known better letter...)
the husband was away for a year in the event, and it was some months after that before he dared go back to her...and the case is worse than above - eg the money paid to her was, according to bank statements, less than the Revenue claim for at least 2 tax years???? i have a two inch high pile of unfathomable correspondence from HMRC given to me by client...

i am waiting for the discovery in the depths of gormenghast of the "We are human beans - send us your messes and we'll sort'em out Department" : )

meanwhile, shots in the dark...

.....and don't tell me......she works for the DWP and he for Network Rail.......and both had their identities stolen......

lol! you were pretty warm with network rail, but no, at least no stolen identities. their rep. has times when she feels she has been body-snatched, however... : )

From the Crazy of Arthur – oops, Gordon – Brown:

After the above, I wrote as below:

“I am confused about the content of your letters. On the one hand, those to X state that the decision has been taken on her application for write off of these overpayments, and that they will not be written off; but on the other hand, the letter to me suggests that the matter is still under consideration on hardship grounds. What is the actual situation please?

I am also concerned about the actual content of the letters. X’s application for remission specifically said: “It is not suggested in this case that the "official mistake" and "reasonable to think it was correct" tests are also satisfied.”

But your letters on the overpayments address only these tests – those which were not raised in the application. None of the letters address the points which were raised: about the hardship that would be caused to X and her child by having to repay, and about the fact that her former partner is better placed to repay (and your COP 26 does commit your department to taking this factor into account).

It also seems irrational to separate the hardship question from the other factors involved in an application for write-off of overpayments. The Department is surely under a duty to consider such an application in the round, taking account of all the issues raised and how these different issues might interact with each other.

One factor alone might not be considered sufficient to merit write off, and neither might the other; but the combined effect of both might. However, if these factors are considered in isolation from each other by separate departments, this rounded view would be impossible. I am consequently deeply concerned that the process you seem to be talking about cannot, by its very nature, give proper consideration to X’s application. I should be grateful therefore if you clarify for me what different teams are involved in the consideration of an overpayment write-off application; what matters each team considers; and where the respective teams are based.

I would also ask you to look again at X’s write-off application as a whole, and, if you are not prepared to write off any or all of these sums, to explain specifically why you reject the points actually raised in her application, and not simply recite word-processed standard paragraphs relating to issues that she did not raise.”

Response?

“Thank you for your letter of 15 May in which you asked why your client had been overpaid tax credits. We have reviewed our records and found that:

2003-2004
Your client’s initial award was based on an annual household income income of £ which gave her an entitlement of £ in tax credit.

However when her award was finalised her actual income was ££. This caused her entitlement to reduce to £ and caused her overpayment.

As this was part of a joint claim both your client and her ex-partner are jointly responsible for repaying the overpayment.

2004-2005
Almost ditto

2005-2006
Almost ditto

For general information about overpaid tax credits, please refer to our Code of Practice 26 ‘What happens if we have paid you too much tax credit?’ For a copy, go online at www.hnrc.gov.uk/leaflets/credit.htm and select COP 26 or phone the Helpline.

To help us improve customer service, please quote your National Insurance number, our reference and a daytime telephone number in any correspondence.”

Is there a conscious policy of attrition to wear people down with such spectacular deliberate incompetence? I’m almost losing the will to live.

But I’m off to Finland tomorrow for a drop of midnight sun, so I’ll hope the client has persuaded her MP to take an interest by the time I get back.