False accusation of Tax Credit fraud
A single mum relative of mine had her tax credits stopped. The TCO told her that they have been informed that (a) she has a partner living with her and (b) her children do not live with her. Neither of these are true. I always thought that were are innocent until proved guilty – but she was treated as being guilty from the beginning and had her tax credits stopped. She has had to prove her innocence. She has had to supply all sorts of documentary evidence such as letters from the schools, yet the TCO have not had to prove the accusations made against her – they accepted the informant's story at face value. After 4 extremely stressful months the TCO have now accepted that the accusations were false and have reinstated the claim. Given that my relative is entirely innocent, does she have any redress against the TCO for the stress this has caused? Does she have a right to find out who made the false accusation in the first place?
I have never posted anonymously on AccountingWeb before – I am only doing it now to protect the identity of my relative.
Awaiting other responses
If HMRC were acting in good faith on information received, then it is hard to blame HMRC for pursuing it. If their powers in pursuing it are excessive then it is up to us as citizens to curb that power in the ballot box. If they have exceeded their powers in pursuing it then, well, that is another matter.
In a utopian society in which I would prefer to abide, the burden of proof would vary according to the fundamental reliability of the evidence, depending on its nature rather than particular circumstances. An informant who went on record would place the burden of proof on the accused, but with some redress by the authorities (albeit perhaps not by the defendant) against the informant in the event of malicious (and inaccurate) information provided. By contrast, an anonymous informant would give grounds for further investigation but without, in isolation, placing any burden of proof on the accused (again, in utopia).
As to what is the reality, it is not my area, but interested to see what others have to say.
I don't know what they are in detail, but I am confident that HMRC have internal procedures in place to assess the reliability of information received and procedures to act on the the basis of that assessment.
With kind regards
Clint Westwood
Tax Credits
I'm so sorry to hear this.
My understanding based on discussions with a senior civil servant is that staff aren't supposed to stop benefits before making an enquiry unless it's a suspected case of mass fraud but I haven't been able to confirm this because the relevant sections of the manual are withheld.
Have you considered contacting CPAG ?
They have two support services for specialist advisers and tax credits are definitely one of their areas of expertise.
Do you feel able to raise this through your working together group ? I can appreciate that your relative might not be happy about this.
You "should" be compensated - but in practice best to forget it.
Depends if you have the time for a long drawn out fight.
In theory your relative should be compensated for the distress, expense etc. But, in practice, filing a complaint and compensation claim will simply end up with banging your head against a brick wall, and if your very very lucky, in a year of so after a couple of dozen letters, they might get £250 maximum.
The only other way is to sue in the civil courts - but do they have the money and the time to do so? And can they afford the costs if they lose?
As for the ID of the informant - I've seen Benefits Agency staff tell a court that they "dont record" the name of informants. Yes they are lying, but how can you prove it?
Typical of the way this governments "snitch on a neighbour" policies work (and I include MLR in that dexcription). Quite frankly it's a disgrace, no different to the way the Stasi worked in communist East Germany - which tells us a lot about this government. Again under EU law you are entitled to face your accuser - but in practice government departments ignore your rights in the full knowledge that if a persn is drawing some form of benefit then they cant afford to take them to court, and certainly not the european courts.