This is kind of following on from "...rarer than a singing caterpillar?", but a bit different.

I have appealed against a large TC OP, sorry the calculation of a TC OP (!!), sent off the appeal to the TC office (compliance) and recieved a letter back saying we had no rights of appeal. I forwarded this appeal to TAS as the IR had just dismissed it. If TAS are not willing to get involved we will be looking to JR.

Today I received a telephone call (yes, a PERSON!) to arrange an "informal" meeting to discuss settlement! I was so baffled by this that I cannot have made full advantage of probably the only time in history that a member of IR staff has contacted a rep.

He stated that there was only an "informal" decision (what is that!) on the overpayment and that we do not need to go through the appeals channel because this can be easily settled with us both having to prepare a detailed submission. I can see his point of this as a submission for this case will be hugely complicated and time consuming, but I doubt that is what he meant. I think it is more likely that he wants us to agree the OP and pay.

He also said that he could not make a decision on the last Tax year without making a "formal" decision to take action, and that as yet no penalty or interest was in place (despite the letters stating otherwise).

Has anyone agreed to have one of these "meetings"? I recon that it is just a way of trying to a) get out of the appeal, and b) holding an informal "appeal" without an independant body involved. I've just stalled him by writing to ask about the proposed areas for discussion. I can't decide if it would be good or bad. I guess it is just letting them get away without having to be regulated by TAS.

It seems obvious from our discussions here that very few of us have any idea of what we are up against with the IR. Maybe we could all apply to observe a TC appeal? Assuming there are any....

Anyone have an opinion?

Jennifer

I wonder what scale this telling people they have no appeal rights is happening on. One of my collegues had a similar letter "As there is no right of appeal this matter wil not be refered to an independant tribunal". It was plain from the appeal form that my collegue had filled in that it was not a recoverability argument but was actually about the calculation of the TCs. My collegue has written back politely explaining that they are talking nonesense and should stop being silly but has not yet had a reply.

There could easily be thousands of people being denied their right of appeal because of this and many will not come to welfare rights services because there is not the historic awareness that has built up amongst benefit claimants. Bad enough that the tax credit scheme is rubbish without this kind of nonesense going on.

I'd be intrested to know what happens if you go to your "informal meeting" Jennifer. Maybe the man from the revenue will arrange to meet you down the pub over a drink and a packet of pork scratchings.

Taxaid have a big section on negotiating with the Inland Revenue so that might give some idea of what to expect and how to approach it. It relates to tax debt but I imagine the same principles could apply.
Like I said in an earlier post, horse trading just became part of our contracts.

http://www.taxaid.org.uk/tax_advisers.cfm?secnav=1&articleid=104

These kinds of informal hearings are commonplace within the tax system. The script goes something like this. "OK, so you have broken the law by not paying your taxes and you have failed in your duty to society. But as this is your first time we are going to give you a chance, come and have a chat with us and let us see if we can work out an arrangement for you to pay us what you owe and the matter will go no further. Otherwise we will haul you through the criminal justice system and criminalise you".

This is the way that the IR staff are trained. They think and work like tax collectors not benefit administrators.

For tax credits the script goes "ok, so you have not broken any law and we have completely failed in our duty to you and the wider society by overpaying you through our incompetence. This is not the first time we have done this. Come and have a chat with us and let us see if we can work out a way for you to pay back this money. Otherwise we will haul you throught the criminal justice system....etc".

Laugh! I nearly did.

But, how can she agree to pay something when she cannot get a breakdown of the calculation unless "formal action" is taken?!

And how are they allowed to CRIMINALISE someone for challenging an Overpayment of BENEFIT??!!!

Obviously, unless fraud or wilful refusal to pay was an issue then the above would not happen. What I was trying to illustrate was the general attitude that may prevail and the general powers that the IR have.

I have had a client recently whose tax credits had been stopped without any formal decision being notified, let alone a breakdown of the overpayment that she was told she owed when she telephoned them to find out why her tax credits had stopped.

Regards
Paul

I had a similar experience with a WFTC overpayment appeal. IR just phoned up out of the blue and asked for a meeting. I was a bit thrown by it, but I think it was worth it. The o/p was a complicated one to do with beneficial ownership of capital, and some of the evidence on our side was not as clear as it might have been. We couldn't reach an agreement, but given the weaknesses in the evidence I don't really blame them for not accepting everything we said, and we were able to clear up some issues that made the eventual appeal submissions/hearing easier. We eventually won at the tribunal. I did feel that they were willing to hear what we had to say, and that in a different case they could have been persuaded to revise the decision.

I a case like that I can see that it could be very good. Unforunately this is a case where the IR are claiming negliegence, and as such have "Terminated" the claim (although has not had a decision saying so!).

The point of this one is that she would have recieved exactly the same amount of money, but it is only due to the termination that she has been awarded none. Legally their decision is correct (but due to lack of decision argueable still open to further revision), but the way this has been handled regarding decisions and the IR making their own decision as to whether people have the right to appeal or not. What ever the result hopefully they will get a slap on the wrist (or more) for the way it has been handled.