Does this annoy anyone else ?

Does this annoy anyone else ?

Didn't find your answer?

I got a letter from HMRC on Saturday (15th), my client got a letter the same day.

It was dated 7th November, setting a deadline for a response of 14th November.

Clearly it's a long way to the postbox from HMRC Towers - does this sort of thing annoy anyone else, or is it just me ?

Replies (40)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Euan's picture
By Euan MacLennan
17th Nov 2014 11:34

It is just you

Most of us just accept it as a way of life!

Thanks (1)
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
17th Nov 2014 11:36

Everybody knows

That I am not easily annoyed.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By User deleted
17th Nov 2014 12:29

No relief is available for 'getting annoyed' under Sch 36 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By pembo
17th Nov 2014 13:22

unlike the thing on the comet you are not alone

Had one dated 5th arrived today although not date sensitive. As rapidly approaching grumpy old git mode (my wife argues got there years ago) I do like to have a bit of fun with the new kids on the block at HMRC towers. Always give them timeframes to reply if one is needed. In a recent enquiry ended with " We expect a reply to this letter within 28 days otherwise notice for statutory performance will be served under the provisions of TMA". Complete garbage of course but made me smile to think of him asking his line manager or whoever what the hell we were going on about.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Vaughan Blake1
17th Nov 2014 13:27

Usually get given 30days..

Even allowing for next day delivery both ways, seven days (five working) is a ludicrously short space of time to expect a reply via the snail mail.

Give 'em a ring and ask for thirty days from 14 November.  Thirty days is the norm, although I have come across cases given fourteen days, but never seven.

Thanks (0)
RLI
By lionofludesch
17th Nov 2014 13:47

Not intimidated

Yeah - I'm not intimidated, to be fair.

By contrast, I received a letter with a new UTR today ( Monday 17th) dated Friday 14th. No reply needed, no deadline to be set.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By michaelblake
17th Nov 2014 13:49

Why not ask why it happens?

I have often wondered why typically HMRC letters take between 10 and 12 days from the date shown on the letter to reach me and decided last month to send an email to Lin Homer asking why that was the case.

I have to date received an automatic holding reply to my email and a letter from the Ministerial Correspondence Team (received within 3 days of the date shown on the letter) promising a substantive reply by a date 28 days after sending the email. I will report back when I have that substantive reply.

Most HMRC officers know that mail is sent 2nd class post and assume that it will arrive within the Post Office guidlines of 2 to 3 working days from the date of  posting. I do think that where something is clearly not working, as those within HMRC believe it to be working one should draw it to their attention and ask why it is not.   

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Vaughan Blake1
17th Nov 2014 14:01

Regardless of the actual delay...

Seven days is impossible anyway!  Posted on 7 November, taking three working days, puts it at the agents office on Wednesday 12th (pm if it is like our post).  Depending on the nature of the response and whether information needs to be collated from elsewhere, even a next day return would see it arriving back at HMRC on Tuesday 18th.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By rjoconnor81
17th Nov 2014 14:01

Post Rooms

As I understand it, the post doesn't leave directly from the officers that send them, nor is the post we send received straight away by those officers.  So letter is issued from Office A, this letter is then transported to Post Room (probably not in the same city) and then processed by the Post Room for sending (not sure what happens at this point but think scanning is involved) and this is where the delay seems to be.  Then it is down to the post office.  

 

The same happens with post we send to HMRC, the post is sent to Office A, then transported to the Post Room (once again not in the same city), for sorting and scanning.  It is then transported to the department (once again probably not in the same city.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
RLI
By lionofludesch
17th Nov 2014 14:49

No problem

fawltybasil2575 wrote:
Some HMRC letters are covered by [i] legislation, and others are covered by [ii] internal HMRC guidelines, in terms of when one is expected/obliged to respond. If HMRC are in breach of either [i] or [ii], then it is not simply "annoying - it is incumbent upon you to specifically "protest" to HMRC [at the appropriate level on the "Richter scale"], in the interests of your clients. Frankly, the appropriate "Richter scale" level of protest will depend upon the matter at issue ; and hence it would be super if you could enlighten us as to the nature of the information which you are being required to submit. Basil.

It's a "tax return by yesterday or we'll issue a determination" letter.

The fact that the client is "a bit late" with his return does not excuse a deadline which is before he receives the letter.

And don't worry.  I'll be mentioning it to HMRC.

Thanks (0)
Glenn Martin
By Glenn Martin
17th Nov 2014 14:45

i had a new world record

the other day (well in my office anyway) where the letter had taken a full month to get to me.

I rang guy concerned to say my letter had just arrived, to which he replied "yea I know our post is terrible"

I told him I would reply that day and he would have the response some time in the new year.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By KH
17th Nov 2014 15:20

Bit of beam, but all the same

I one had a letter from HMRC, replied within a week, and then it took exactly 360 days to get a reply from the tax officer ... but at least he did apologise for the delay in that reply ... so I treated him as a nice guy, and replied within just a shade under 9 months!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mabzden
17th Nov 2014 16:43

Pony Express

I was once told by someone at HMRC that they have a special deal with Royal Mail. They pay a reduced rate but the post gets treated as low priority, presumably with all these letters being "stored" in a corner of the sorting office until Royal Mail has time to process it.

Normally I make a point of never believing anything HMRC tell me over the phone. But in this case I'm prepared to make an exception.

Thanks (0)
By The VAT Doctor
18th Nov 2014 08:08

Decades
I can beat you all. Saw a letter from HMRC yesterday on an option to tax dated 10th February 1939.

Obviously a mistake, but I an already thinking how I can use this to the clients advantage!

On the main point, yes, annoying and because HMRC have centralised post. Example: until recently the VAT office were next door to us, yet we had to write to Liverpool.

Beyond crazy.

Thanks (0)
By The Grammar Police
18th Nov 2014 20:48

Mine was stored for a long time

Got one today dated 7th May 2014.

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
18th Nov 2014 21:09

What about this explanation

I was talking to the HMRC VAT office in Grimsby. They said that their letters were typed in Grimsby but printed off in Birmingham. They were sent by courier from Birmingham to Grimsby. In Grimsby they were signed and posted. At least I assume they were posted in Grimsby but maybe HMRC send them back to Birmingham to be posted from there!

I once set up an employers scheme over the phone for an employer with an unusual name. We went through the name a letter at a time and checked they were typing it correctly. I could hear the typing. When I got the documents through the post the spelling was totally different. I phoned up and gave them the correct spelling and asked how the error had happened. They explained that they take the details over the phone and type them into their records. They then print out their record and fax it to another office and from there it is typed into another record for the document to be printed out and sent to the employer.

HMRC seem to have a totally different mindset to the rest of the world.

Thanks (0)
By Paul D Utherone
18th Nov 2014 22:36

Lots of different stories as to why...

... the one that I recall from someone fairly high up in HMRC at a branch CPD was that the letters were printer centrally and queued until the right paper was loaded in the hopper. So at the time they had realised that they weren't fully taking this into account so that around June & December when the reminders and statements of account were issued the hoppers were always loaded with SOA or Reminder paper and other letters didnt get out of the door. Supposedly this was to be addressed, but that is getting on two years ago now, so perhaps not.

Seems like Chinese Whispers at work and we all get a slightly different version of the reason as it has been filtered through to the call centres & offices

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
18th Nov 2014 22:41

I don't think they are different versions of the same reason

I think there are many reasons why HMRC are inefficient.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By gemmaw
19th Nov 2014 12:16

I received a letter on 17 November which was dated 4 October....

When I asked HMRC they said the letters were all printed on the same day but posted out in batches. As a 'W' I was obviously last in the pile. And yes it was date sensitive!

 

Thanks (0)
By cfield
19th Nov 2014 12:29

P800 dates could be crucial

I had a letter that took over a month to reach me earlier this year, demanding a reply before we even received it!

It's farcical of course (especially when you read the posts above revealing the reasons) and I always make a point of putting in brackets (received on....) when I refer to their letters in correspondence.

It could be crucial in ESC A19 cases, however, as they often claim a P800 was sent within 12 months. If the taxpayer didn't receive it until the following tax year due to delays at their end, it shouldn't count.

I had an A19 case recently where the taxpayer claimed not to have received a P800 and I asked HMRC for proof it was sent. They sent a screenshot showing Date of Contact 3/3/13. Being over a month before the end of the tax year, it would be hard to claim it wasn't received in time and the Ombudsman would no doubt rely on it, but I wonder whether she would if it had been just a week before.

About time we had a Tribunal ruling on their issue dates. Maybe they should deem 7-10 days to be the normal time-frame for delivery.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Homeworker
19th Nov 2014 12:32

Enquiry letters

This is especially worrying when the letter is an enquiry into a tax return.  We had one last Thursday (13th) that was dated the 7th, in which they said they would call us on the 14th and expected a reply by the 28th.

They in fact rang on the 17th, when I was out, but the client is currently abroad so there is no chance of me getting the information they need in time anyway.  Have just left a message saying so but why do they give us so little time and will this be a "black mark" on our record as agents?

Thanks (0)
Replying to User deleted:
avatar
By derbyshiretaxservices
19th Nov 2014 13:05

I've had one of these too!

Enquiry letter dated 31 Oct, saying they would ring on 10 Nov and wanted a reply by 21 Nov. Letter was not received by me until 6 Nov. No phone call received on 10 Nov but one on 13 Nov from an HMRC officer. I pointed out to them the shortness of the timescale and reminded them that it usually takes HMRC 4-6 weeks to respond to letters etc and that was the likely timescale I'd be working to. Anyway, the day after, the actual Inspector whose name was on the letter rang me as well. He generously said he would extend the deadline to 28 Nov!! He said it was HMRC policy to expect a reply within 3 weeks!!! He couldn't seem to comprehend that I was slightly less than impressed by his letter with a ridiculous timescale and the fact that I'd had two phone calls from HMRC over it as well?

Thanks (0)
Replying to User deleted:
avatar
By petestar1969
19th Nov 2014 16:33

Hmm

Homeworker wrote:

This is especially worrying when the letter is an enquiry into a tax return.  We had one last Thursday (13th) that was dated the 7th, in which they said they would call us on the 14th and expected a reply by the 28th.

They in fact rang on the 17th, when I was out, but the client is currently abroad so there is no chance of me getting the information they need in time anyway.  Have just left a message saying so but why do they give us so little time and will this be a "black mark" on our record as agents?

 

Just write back to them explaining client is away and ask for another 30 days.

 

Never been a problem for me.

Thanks (0)
Replying to User deleted:
avatar
By Homeworker
19th Nov 2014 16:40

Unbelievable?

Homeworker wrote:

This is especially worrying when the letter is an enquiry into a tax return.  We had one last Thursday (13th) that was dated the 7th, in which they said they would call us on the 14th and expected a reply by the 28th.

They in fact rang on the 17th, when I was out, but the client is currently abroad so there is no chance of me getting the information they need in time anyway.  Have just left a message saying so but why do they give us so little time and will this be a "black mark" on our record as agents?

Having contacted HMRC yesterday to explain that client was away, he turned up today and as we could not work out what was missing from the tax return, I phoned the Inspector while he was with me.

Once we established which bank accounts they were looking for, I said the client would need time to go back and investigate, as they had been closed.  She said that she would normally have sent out a S36 notice next week (!) but would give us until the week after next to provide the information.  I pointed out that we only received her letter last Thursday and she had the nerve to suggest that the problem with the post was at our end!!  Clearly they don't read AW or realise the delays in the post leaving their offices and in delivery.

Thanks (0)
RLI
By lionofludesch
19th Nov 2014 12:41

Urgent

It's one thing to be sending routine, non-urgent letters using a cheapjack mail service.

It's quite another to be sending mail setting short deadlines by such a service.  It's just not good enough.

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
19th Nov 2014 13:13

One point in HMRCs favour

I think it's reasonable for HMRC to phone again to address your concern (only slightly!) but I'm with you on everything else.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By petestar1969
19th Nov 2014 15:42

Hmm

There is no real "delay" in the post. They deliberately date letters incorrectly to give you less time.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wanderer:
RLI
By lionofludesch
21st Nov 2014 20:33

Criminal

petestar1969 wrote:

There is no real "delay" in the post. They deliberately date letters incorrectly to give you less time.

That would be a criminal offence.  It's a very serious allegation.

Thanks (0)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
19th Nov 2014 16:01

Time travel

Had a letter demanding a response by 3/11/2014. The letter was dated 4/11/2014.

We received a matching letter the same day with a more sensible deadline, so possibly someone saw sense. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By peterlashmar
19th Nov 2014 16:58

It seems unduly harsh of HMRC to demand a reply within 7 days.  Have you been delaying sending replies previously?

 

I was once told that all HMRC outgoing mail is sorted by the Royal Mail is Inniskillin. That is where all undelivered mail is now sorted by Royal Mail for return to sender.

 

Surely you have better ways to spend your time than getting annoyed about HMRC mail being delivered a long time after its date?

Thanks (0)
Replying to bernard michael:
By JCresswellTax
19th Nov 2014 17:15

And

peterlashmar wrote:

Surely you have better ways to spend your time than getting annoyed about HMRC mail being delivered a long time after its date?

Surely you have better ways to spend your time than to tell people what they're allowed to get annoyed about?

Thanks (0)
Replying to NYB:
avatar
By andrew.hyde
20th Nov 2014 10:13

This could run and run

JCresswellTax wrote:

peterlashmar wrote:

Surely you have better ways to spend your time than getting annoyed about HMRC mail being delivered a long time after its date?

Surely you have better ways to spend your time than to tell people what they're allowed to get annoyed about?

 

Surely you have better ways to spend your time than telling people how to spend their time telling people [etc etc]

Thanks (0)
Replying to bernard michael:
RLI
By lionofludesch
19th Nov 2014 18:52

Bigger delay than I thought

peterlashmar wrote:

I was once told that all HMRC outgoing mail is sorted by the Royal Mail is Inniskillin.

Sounds about right - it's about 100 years since it was spelt that way.  Lovely little town, though.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By qad999
20th Nov 2014 00:18

and they still dont like using email...

because they say its insecure .........and might be intercepted ... (like snail mail cant be intercepted of course ?)

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By North East Accountant
20th Nov 2014 08:59

Happens all the time

Reply "Thank you for your letter dated x and received on Y...."

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
20th Nov 2014 10:26

Time

Using this theory there is only one thing that a person should be doing. I'm glad I don't subscribe to that theory.

Thanks (0)
Morph
By kevinringer
20th Nov 2014 13:31

Dates

At least your letter was dated 7 November. I receive a lot of HMRC correspondence that omits the date and just has the month and year. And I often receive it the following month. I have raised the problem of late post at our local WT meeting but we've never had any answer, let along a satisfactory answer. Our businesses would collapse if we were so hit-and-miss with issues such as this. So why does HMRC feel it can do it?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ldcldc
21st Nov 2014 14:02

Dates

The thing that irritates me is that, more often than not, the client gets a letter before the copy gets to me.

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
21st Nov 2014 20:45

They don't have to do that

if they want to limit your time.

HMRC just set up an incompetent post system so you have less time.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By GuestXXX
17th Mar 2015 17:46

.

Thanks (0)