HMRC Delays in Repayments

HMRC Delays in Repayments

Didn't find your answer?

Suddenly this year, I am regularly being told that a repayment to one of my clients has been selected for a security check and passed to an HMRC office in Bristol; this has never happened previously to any of my clients in the 6 years I have specialised in my tax field. Experience to date has shown that such a referral delays the repayment by about 2 months; the department in question can only be contacted by post and, if you do, you get back a stereotype letter saying that they will contact when their work is finished or if they need further information. Until recently, even the Agent Customer Relations Managers could not contact them but I am told that they now have email only contact but not telephone contact.

In my most recent case, the repayment was delayed by an excessive backlog in the South Yorkshire office, of around two months. When chased by me that that their notification in March showed the item paid, it clearly made them move on it, only for it to be picked up at such a late stage for Bristol to examine. Those of mine that they have examined have never, to date, resulted in any enquiry into the content. Payment delays must be caused by an office picking out clients at random because automated payments of electronic returns are, currently, made in 5 days!

I understand from my Agent Customer Services Manager that I am only one of many agents complaining about this and this is my fourth case.

Clearly HMRC are not set-up for the work they are trying to do and someone at the top needs to look into the resources needed or adjust the payments/checks system so that repayments are made properly and only such checks as they can handle are generated.

If taxpayers delayed payment in such ways, then there would be a hefty fine and interest charged; should not HMRC pay fines/interest where they delay repayments unreasonably.

I would be interested in any comments, particularly any advice on how to expedite matters for my clients.

AM

Replies (15)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By rhangus.
27th May 2009 10:09

Chris
Dont use words like only or merely to me when suggesting you did little wrong when in fact you did. As you failed to answer a simple q, I dont think you deserve the remaining details.
Suffice to say that, by the end of this year, I think HMRC will be my biggest client.

My only frustrations, apart from HMRC, are on the internet. That kinda contradicts your stab in the dark comment Peter?

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
26th May 2009 10:55

Sad but true
Christopher

It's the internet. That tool that some people use anonymously to take out all their frustrations.

Thanks (0)
By thomas.peterson
26th May 2009 10:25

Shambles
This new security check process is a shambles and has led to much annoyance to myself and my clients.

One client had me call HMRC every other day (literally) to ask for a progress report. From first being told it had been selected (early Feb, return submitted in December) I rang three times a week until the beginning of May when it was actually repaid. So ringing makes no difference.

The department has no address, no 'phone number, no email address, and exists only in the minds of HMRC. I'm even beginning to believe it may be run by one geriatric sat in the corner of an office, that would after all explain a lot...

Oh, and the best bit is that HMRC have had £30,000+ of overpaid tax which was paid 3 months later than it should have been, interest payable at 0% equals............... Wish I were HMRC, you get £15,000 for a year, another £15,000 for 6 months, you pay a pitance of interest for having it in your bank, you then realise you have no legal right to have it so you hold it 3 months longer and pay 0% interest on it! It's like shopping at DFS!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Guest1
26th May 2009 08:41

I too, only asked
At the end of the day, we're only here for the week-end.
Having only recently started to visit this site I really have been astonished, although not surprised, at some of the tone of interchanges between correspondents. Some of the ill chosen invective makes one cringe.
In all sincerity I merely asked Ronald to share the compensation route with us, so that we may all benefit from that experience. Surely that isn't too much to ask, is it?
Whilst I may be wrong, the additional costs is a route which I've adopted merely to try and recover what would generally be regarded as lost time.
Once the complaint has been resolved I bill the client, in detail, for the additional costs (including postage and other disbursements) and, once the account has been paid (by the client) I submit the receipted bill to the relevant Revenue department and monitor the situation until the client has been repaid. In theory, it's as simple as that. In practise, it takes time and diverts you from other pressing matters, although I believe it's important and, I presume, these "events" are monitored by the Revenue's managers for improvement in their service?
Why can't we all take a chill pill with our daily life, sing from the same hymn sheet and, at least appear, to enjoy what we do?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By rhangus.
26th May 2009 01:24

I ask again, what additional costs?
Perhaps a lttle less cryptic answer is deserved. I only asked what additional costs you claimed for which HMRC presumably paid you or r u talking tosh?

I may divulge this pretty imprtant information but I doubt u lot r worth it. I'll keep it to myself and see my bank balance swell.

I really dont think many if any claim compensation despite all the moans and groans about HMRCs poor service.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Dave Paveley
25th May 2009 16:46

I suspect most of Little Ron's clients are worried and distresse

..or at least they should be!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Guest1
25th May 2009 15:53

Ronald Angus
"A day without learning is a day lost"
Please share with us the compensation route. My understanding of the Revenue's "Complaints and Putting things right" guidelines is that; the only time that an additional payment (presumably compensation) would be made, aside from reasonable additional costs, is if the taxpayer was affected particularly badly, causing worry or distress.
£2,500 sounds like a whole load of worry and distress and your posting seems to give the impression that this is a regular theme you use?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By rhangus.
25th May 2009 09:27

Chris
What additional Costs did you claim?
Presumably you did not get your extra time because it is the client who has to claim for that if he decides to pay for your extra fee note for all your extra costs due to HMRC incompetence.

It seems like the people in here are missing a huge opportunity to not let HMRC off with their incompetence and to get some compensation at the same time. Surely an everyone wins scenario.

I expect to receive around £2,500 in compensation before end of June. Why are you lot not claiming this compensation money?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Guest1
20th May 2009 10:31

Mention the clients MP
I've had similar cases with the new regime of "screening and security". One of the refunds took so long that I claimed additional costs from HM Revenue & Customs.
When I lost my patience with the second, I suggested that the refund should be dealt with within 7 days or, alternatively, I would seek the assistance of the client's MP. Strangely enough, that did the trick. I've also written to Alistair Darling, to put him in the picture.
Advisers wouldn't mind so much if there was any form of reliable communication from the "other side". Regretfully, with the; introduction of the call centre approach and general changes to local offices, communication is a thing of the past. When you speak to some of the staff who work in these offices and, have an "informed" manner they are just as frustrated as we are.
All I can say is, find the time to write to as many of those involved as possible. Recent events have shown that the public can make a difference!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
20th May 2009 09:39

Need to chase up by phone
I've had success just telephoning the tax office using the agent phone numbers. The first time when I asked why the repayment hadn't been done 2 months after the return was filed online, when they had the necessary bank details etc - the response was "we probably haven't got round to it yet". The client got their repayment the next week. I've phoned up about other overdue repayments & again got the money for the client the next week. On the other hand, most letters take months for a response so it doesn't seem worth chasing by letter. When I've phoned recently I got the impression that its lack of staff that is causing the delay, perhaps due to the financial climate there are a lot more repayments arising. I haven't been given the security story once but it just seems that perhaps HMRC are dealing with repayments only when you chase the money & if you don't phone to chase your client stays at the bottom of the action pile.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
20th May 2009 09:28

Not entirely the same but...
I am a PAYE employee, and towards the end of the last tax year I received a new tax code for the remainder of 2008-9. It said that I owed them £766 in unpaid tax from the year 2005-6 - this was first I had heard of it, and to my mind, I didn't owe it to them. I called to challenge them, they said I would have to put it in writing, and in the meantime, they took the £766 from one pay cheque anyway (on top of my regular £200 aprox. tax payment totalling a whopping £981 tax deduction from one pay). This was in February. I went to see them about it; nothing happened, they told me to wait until the end of the tax year and call back if nothing had happened. I duly called back because surprise surprise! nothing had happened; made another appointment to go in and go through it all AGAIN; the advisor checked all their systems; agreed I didn't owe it to them; said they should never have never have taken it all in one go; and sent a note 'upstairs' to say they had until 30 May to pay me back or prove I owed it them. Needless to say, I have not yet received my refund, or any communication, so I'm guessing, yes, they are hanging on to it for their benefit, while I am still running on a deficit of £766, 3 months later. (can I sting them for overdraft fees and interest deducted after all this?)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
19th May 2009 22:54

repaid twice
"My biggest concern though is that the HMRC Online services still shows the repayment as having been made, even though its been stopped by security. How many times have we told a client it was issued and then found the repayment had been stopped?"

We had this with one client. After a couple of days it went back to showing repayment available. Thinking it was an error we reclaimed the repayment. Next thing we knew the client had recieved the repayment twice and the online sysyem showed him owing the Revenue.

Ah well, it was cheaper than borrowing from the bank - lol.

Just shows though, their systems are not exactly "robust" are they.

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
19th May 2009 22:31

Typical buffoons
"My biggest concern though is that the HMRC Online services still shows the repayment as having been made, even though its been stopped by security. How many times have we told a client it was issued and then found the repayment had been stopped?"

This just another example of the stupidity of HMRC management.

When will HMRC get rid of the people who allow this to happen?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
19th May 2009 19:33

Maybe they are justified....
Firstly as a taxpayer Ive got no particular problem with extra security measures being put in place to prevent fraudulent claims. Perhaps the OP should be perhaps asking why such extensive checks are required......

To me, there are two separate reasons. The first as highlighted in the recent HMRC document relates to the growth of, generally, "unqualified and unethical" advisers operating on scanty grounds to produce repayments for clients previously never entitled to them. Weve all seen the ads for reayments in 48hrs etc and if the extra security processes curb the growth of these sort of advisers then thats got to be good for the profession as a whole, irrespective of your qualifications or experience.

The second aspect is the centralisation of work within HMRC itself, often without logic. One clear example of this is the recent changes which designate a PAYE source as a persons main district irrespective of the relative size and types of other income. eg a self-employed person earning £200k a year draws down a pension apying £500 per annum - the district dealing with the pensions provided by that company becomes the main district with responsibility for all of the taxpayer's affairs. But of course theyve not had the training to deal with sch D sources.....

Ive got issues with the time it takes to clear "security" and the inability to get sensible comments from HMRC as to how long a particular repayment will take to clear. This goes back to the second point above with the centralisation of work meaning that the frontline contact staff have no real knowledge and you cant deal with the people in th background. When I started in tax twenty years I knew all the local Inspectors, the debt recovery head and the receptionist in the local office, who was often the best person to know, and would discretely connect you to the right person.

My biggest concern though is that the HMRC Online services still shows the repayment as having been made, even though its been stopped by security. How many times have we told a client it was issued and then found the repayment had been stopped?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
19th May 2009 17:41

interest
The cynic in me makes me think this may be the same as banks taking 3 days to clear a cheque. It's a way that they can earn a bit more interest on your client's money.

Of course HMRC wouldn't be so devious - would they ?

Thanks (0)