HMRC

Some thirty months past, enjoying somewhat better health, we were hunkering down in preparation for another Christmas. We had hoped to avoid the worst of the season's ravages and were anticipating spending valued time with family. 'T was, I believe the 23rd of December, late enough into the year that the TV channels had been all but choked up with a surfeit of advertising and vacuous self-serving  non-celebrity 'entertainment.' Pass the whisky, please do!

Another load of seasonal recycling dropped through the letter box. Almost hidden, meekly insignificant within the binable load, were two letters that hinted at rather more. "HMRC, unlikely to be a circular of well-wishing intent," I had thought. And indeed not!

Just so, mSeattle

It transpired that Minitrue had spotted a small mistake that I had 'made' within its own labyrithian system. Further clarification had been deemed superfluous to the singular goal of speedy rectification. Along with a several million other lesser citizens my funds would be needed to dam the looming celestial Barlow Cluster- already classified as supermassive. "The reason for underpayment wrong tax code operated," the shorter of the two texts 'conceded.' A tax demand, no less! Two!

Errors within omniscient beings being what they are I was to be deemed responsible and, had one young uninitiated man not blurted, "Sounds like a case of ESCA 19," I am confident that the error could swiftly and seamlessly have been dealt with. For clarification, ESCA 19 is an extra-statutory concession whereby an error deemed to have been caused entirely by HMRC could be written off.

I had been with the same employer for three decades, tax cock-ups were generally not an issue. I'd like to personally thank the young HMRC 'miscreant' who raised the issue of ESCA 19, but our telephone conversation was brief and his name is lost to the ravages of time. With joy in my heart I eagerly clarified things for the mighty HMRC. My appeal was swiftly in the post. "Honesty is the best policy," I thought.

Sadly, a thought not consistent within Minitrue. Inside of two months- very 'efficient'- HMRC had undertaken a 'full and thorough review' of the situation and 'fairly' dealt with the issue. I quote:
"We have considered your case under Extra Concession (ESC) A19 which allows us not to collect tax in certain cases. Full details of ESC A19 are on the leaflet included with this letter and on our website at hmrc.gov.uk/esc/esc.htm. We are sorry, but ESC A19 does not apply in your case and the tax is still due." 

Many thanks to Gaellery

Apparently, having ensured that all the correct information had been forwarded to HMRC (my role) I had not then spotted that HMRC had used these codes incorrectly (also my role), thus it was to be deemed my fault and liability (also my role). It was 'reassuringly warming' to know that I had been dealt with "fairly" and "impartially."Had I been living in one of those tin pot dictatorships Lord alone knows what little chance I'd have had," I mused, in an almost celebratory fashion.

Thanking my lucky stars that I lived in an accountable democracy, I swiftly sought to acquire all of the so-far-absent relevant information regarding who should have been deemed culpable. Many replies and several letters were, sometimes painfully, extracted from various sources, thankfully all contacts concurred with my thoughts upon the issue. So without further ado my findings were, once more, in the post, a second appeal duly launched.

Almost unnervingly on the ball, HMRC were able to, this time, conduct a 'fair and impartial review' of my case and have their polite response- still warm- nestling in my hands within a few weeks. Although the reply could certainly not possibly have been of standard subterfuge variety, it was remarkable how similar it appeared to its predecessor. I again quote:
"We have reviewed your case again but we still have the same opinion that ESC A19 does not apply in your case and the tax is still due."

The 'impartial' reviewer went on to clarify that, "This is because we still have no record of any information sent by you or a third party which we failed to act on."

"Curious," I distinctly recall thinking, "how it is that stapled information might so manage to separate and then obliterate itself, within the 'trusted' Minitrue edifice.

Perfect, from fusion-of-horizons

Much as it was going to impinge upon my time and resources, I was going to have to delve. "Perhaps a point by point letter might assist?" I considered. One of which was duly composed, followed by a second, more concise letter the next month. I was hoping that somewhere within the mighty HMRC my letter might chance upon an intact soul.

I had discovered that the root of the problem appeared to be one huge IT blunder on the part of HMRC. That is to write that a multi-million pound IT system, designed to enable all records to be 'efficiently' and 'helpfully stored' in one place, had recently been 'implemented.' This and the resultant 'efficiency savings'- to clarify, this means staffing cuts- had all the while remained unspoken.

My calls to HMRC, both numerous and lengthy, might haunt me for a while yet to come. Upon being asked if there was anything else one HMRC employee might help me with, I was initially almost dumbstruck, as said individual had not actually helped me with anything at all. I opted for, "Might there be a more objective colleague close at hand?" Judgemental, but fairly so I considered. A second HMRC employee 'assured' me that the tax coding system was, "easy to understand!" It seemed jolly remiss of me not to have mentioned the approximately fifteen million individuals who had also failed to yet grasp this "easy to understand" system.

Although it seemed that over one hundred of HMRC's top officers had managed to master the tax-coding system, and used the same to 'wonderful' personal effect; perhaps another reason that my funds were being so keenly sought. At this stage I was strong-armed into 'agreeing' a monthly repayment plan. Undiscussed and more covertly undertaken, my tax codes were also altered. As is the way with unilateral powers, they are so easy to abuse.

On the 12th of February 2013, a mere fourteen months into this fiasco, I launched my third appeal- one is actually entitled to four reviews- with another four-pager. Then I waited!

A prompt(ish) reply merely acknowledged receipt and urged me to be patient, which I was. I have found that there are usually two sides to dealing with political officialdom. There is invariably the unshakable and underlying sense that one is entirely right in one's perception of having been treated less than fairly, but this is all-too-often heavily countered by an equally strong belief that such will generally prevail. Ultimately, the chink is always there, it's just down to luck whether one is fortunate enough to encounter someone within one of these organisations who may still be blessed of both a soul and that of a suitably elevated ranking to be able to do anything about it.

On the 10th of July 2013 just such a juxstapositioning of these two eventualities first became evident. The letter that I received from The Adjudicator's Office was even more verbose than my own appeal, at a full  nine sides of A4. I read the reply with a growing sense that Minitrue might just have been rumbled.

At this stage the adjudicator had not yet started his investigation, so logic would suggest that nothing much could have changed. The only significant change in circumstance was that this internal review had been instructed by an external adjudicator. Yet HMRC's position had mysteriously shifted somewhat. Curious how two 'honest' appraisals might be contradicted by a third. What could possibly have caused such a disparity?

Mmmm! Thanks to John Perivolaris









HMRC's response had rather telegraphed the crumbling of it's fortress of deceit. I learned far more from this single letter than I had from all previous correspondences. Up until this point there had been much use of the word "reasonable," it's flexible capacity for subterfuge and consequent misuse. In this letter I learned that:

"we (HMRC) should have reviewed our coding for the coming year. We did not and it is unclear from our records why no action was taken."

"It is not until 8th February 2012 that we (HMRC) finally got to grips with (the complainant's) coding"

"Clearly this was an incorrect reason to refuse ESC A19."

"They are inadequate replies and all contain various errors concerning the events leading to the operation of incorrect (tax) codes."

"... we have established that the tax arrears result from our (HMRC's) failure to make proper and timely use of the information received."

The chink that I had been hoping to find was beginning to open. HMRC were now fighting a rearguard action but, ever 'truthful' to the goals of Minitrue, they were hoping- I suspect no longer expecting- to dam the breach.

"However, our original decision to refuse ESC A19 for later years was correct."

"Later year's arrears can not be given up under ESC A19 and the amounts due for 2010-11 and 2011-12 are still outstanding."

Indeed "outstanding" is what the tenacity of deceit had now become, outstandingly disingenuous. "But at the length," I considered the, "truth will out." I shared my thoughts with the adjudicator and prepared to wait on.

The chink was finally fully opened after precisely two years, two months and twenty-seven days. In brief, HMRC had been deemed wholly at fault; thus the issue was settled fully and entirely in my favour. As part of the settlement HMRC were required also to submit, in writing, an apology. 'T was etched in blood and spanned one side of heavily-stamped-upon A4, concluding with the following:

"I am sorry we have not handled your tax affairs as well as we should have done and the standard of service you have received is below that which we normally strive to achieve. I do hope that your dealings with us run more smoothly in the future."

Where to start with this as an example of honest communication?