RTI Payroll ID

RTI Payroll ID

Didn't find your answer?

I have just acquired a new payroll client. I use Moneysoft, and the previous payroll agent used Sage.

The handover information included an extremely long (20+ digits) "RTI Payroll ID" for each employee.

Is this information required when I transfer the employee details on to Moneysoft?  I generally don't use Payroll IDs for new payrolls that I have set up myself, as my payroll clients are all very small employers with at most a handful of staff. I am not sure what the use of such a lengthy number would be. It doesn't even fit on the payslip!

Replies (25)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By stratty
23rd Apr 2015 14:24

RTI

My understanding is that if you do not use the RTI Payroll ID when transferring across software it will create duplicate records at HMRC.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Richard_Carey
23rd Apr 2015 14:34

use it once

You should initially use the same ID as was used in Sage. After sending your first FPS you can then change the ID (to something shorter / more suitable) within Moneysoft.. The change of ID will be reported to HMRC on the next FPS.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By sparkler
23rd Apr 2015 19:55

Thank you

Thanks both, very useful information.

Thanks (0)
Img
By MissAccounting
23rd Apr 2015 21:23

Interesting...and rather than start a new thread...where do you find the payroll ID within Moneysoft?  Im taking over the payroll for a client who uses Moneysoft also. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By sparkler
23rd Apr 2015 21:48

perhaps there isn't one?

In my copy of Moneysoft, the Payroll ID only appears where I have entered it myself. I do not believe such a number is generated automatically, although I am very happy to be corrected on this if I am wrong!

The Payroll ID box is to be found on the "work" tab of the "employee details" for each employee.

Thanks (0)
Img
By MissAccounting
23rd Apr 2015 21:55

Yeah I saw that and thought it must be somewhere else? So will submitting month 2 from my end on Moneysoft cause a duplicate?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By sparkler
23rd Apr 2015 22:13

I think it should be okay!

I have just found the following sentence in a Moneysoft online helpsheet:

"IMPORTANT: Some Payroll Software ( e.g.Sage ) will have assigned a 'PayID' to each employee and reported this in FPS returns to HMRC. If so then you should ensure that you import this PayID into the 'Works Number/Payroll ID' field within Payroll Manager."

Which tends to suggest that such an ID is NOT created automatically by Moneysoft and therefore it will do no harm submitting your Month 2 without an ID, if one does not already appear in the Works Number/Payroll ID field.

Thanks (0)
Replying to andrew1211:
avatar
By sparkler
24th Apr 2015 10:00

Not if the transfer is Moneysoft to Moneysoft

PBH64 wrote:

sparkler wrote:

I have just found the following sentence in a Moneysoft online helpsheet:

"IMPORTANT: Some Payroll Software ( e.g.Sage ) will have assigned a 'PayID' to each employee and reported this in FPS returns to HMRC. If so then you should ensure that you import this PayID into the 'Works Number/Payroll ID' field within Payroll Manager."

Which tends to suggest that such an ID is NOT created automatically by Moneysoft and therefore it will do no harm submitting your Month 2 without an ID, if one does not already appear in the Works Number/Payroll ID field.

Isn't the key word in the Moneysoft advice "ensure"? So HMRC hold the Sage ID, if the Moneysoft  return goes in with a new ID (which a blank one will be) won't HMRC systems then conclude that it's a new employment as the return doesn't quote the old one in the previous payroll ID field which is the cue to HMRC that you're changing payroll IDs.   

I was replying to MissAccounting, who was transferring a payroll from Moneysoft to Moneysoft, rather than my own query which was with regard to a transfer from Sage to Moneysoft.

Thanks (0)
Euan's picture
By Euan MacLennan
24th Apr 2015 09:53

No duplicate

Richard Carey speaks for Moneysoft.  I assume that Moneysoft will automatically set the flag on the second FPS to say that the Payroll ID has been changed.  Do as he says and a duplicate record will not be generated subject, of course, to HMRC's systems working as they should.

Moneysoft does not generate a Payroll ID automatically.  It is what you choose to enter in the Works Number/Payroll ID box on the Employee Details > Work tab.

Thanks (0)
Replying to RedFive:
By coops456
24th Apr 2015 13:26

Automatic payroll IDs

Euan MacLennan wrote:

Moneysoft does not generate a Payroll ID automatically.  It is what you choose to enter in the Works Number/Payroll ID box on the Employee Details > Work tab.

Actually since a recent update, Moneysoft can generate an ID automatically. On the Employer Details screen, there's a tick box at the bottom "Ensure all employees have a unique works number / payroll ID".

If you tick this box, any new employees that you create will have the next available number automatically inserted in their works number/payroll ID field. Very handy for some of our payrolls with a high turnover of staff.

I haven't tested to see if it will in-fill any existing employees without an ID, but I don't see why not.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By sparkler
24th Apr 2015 10:08

Illegible ID

I had no idea that such a small matter would cause so much trouble.  I have attempted to enter the Payroll ID for each employee and realised that the handwritten copy of these that I have been provided with by the previous accountant is illegible. I have politely asked for a typed version or screen shot, and the previous accountant has replied to say that he doesn't have time to provide this!

I think my only option now will be to either submit a potentially incorrect ID, or none at all.

My one hope is that because I am processing the payroll for Month 1, it will not cause a duplicate record because there is no previous information in the payroll year for these employees to be duplicated.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By MM Bookkeeping Services
24th Apr 2015 10:28

I was transferring a payroll from Sage to Brightypay to commence the new tax year.

Brightpay said it was not necessary to use the ID generated by Sage as it was the start of a new tax year. Brightpay generated a new ID for each employee.

I also use QTAC Mamut payroll and it has a box to tick if you do not know the previous ID so I can only assume this generates some info for HMRC when the FPS is sent.

My understanding is it will not cause problems if changing at the start of the new tax year.

Thanks (1)
By williams lester accountants
24th Apr 2015 13:17

Stupid Question

It may be a stupid question....but why does HMRC need a payroll ID? Surely the NI number should be unique within each employer?

Thanks (2)
Replying to memyself-eye:
avatar
By PBH64
24th Apr 2015 15:02

Not a stupid question

williams lester accountants wrote:

It may be a stupid question....but why does HMRC need a payroll ID? Surely the NI number should be unique within each employer?

Because some employers have mutiple employments per NINO per scheme?

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to memyself-eye:
Tom McClelland
By TomMcClelland
24th Apr 2015 15:16

Multiple employments in a scheme

williams lester accountants wrote:

It may be a stupid question....but why does HMRC need a payroll ID? Surely the NI number should be unique within each employer?

 

If an employee leaves and restarts that is a different employment and should have a different payroll ID. But their NINO would still be the same, of course.

Thanks (0)
Replying to memyself-eye:
avatar
By psimonparsons
27th Apr 2015 20:18

You're kidding
Employees with multiple employments may have the same NIÑO on each employment. NINO may be unique to individuals (apart from the 2,000 that use AB123456C - yes it's areal NINO). They are not unique to an employer.

Thanks (0)
By Charlie Carne
27th Apr 2015 11:45

Typical HMRC complexity

I don't know why HMRC like to create additional complexity where none is required. As Williams Lester point out, the NI number is already a unique identifier and remains fixed for life, irrespective of the software used, so there is no need to create a second identifier that will be changed every time the employer changes and may be changed on a change of software. The combination of NI number and employer reference also uniquely identifies the particular employment, so a reference is not also required for that. Tom McClelland and PBH64 suggest that a second employment for the same employer requires a new code; why can the software not just add a suffix to the NI number in that situation?

Surely it is also time for HMRC to merge the Accounts Office Reference and PAYE Reference, as a second reference number for the same employer is surely redundant?

Thanks (1)
Replying to accountantccole:
avatar
By onicholson
27th Apr 2015 13:15

Required

charliecarne wrote:

I don't know why HMRC like to create additional complexity where none is required. As Williams Lester point out, the NI number is already a unique identifier and remains fixed for life, irrespective of the software used, so there is no need to create a second identifier that will be changed every time the employer changes and may be changed on a change of software. The combination of NI number and employer reference also uniquely identifies the particular employment, so a reference is not also required for that. Tom McClelland and PBH64 suggest that a second employment for the same employer requires a new code; why can the software not just add a suffix to the NI number in that situation?

The ID is required in some cases, which is why it's an optional field. You use it when you have to and you can not use it when you don't have to. In practice, your software may dictate that you must use it at all times.

A suffix on the NI number means that it is no longer the NI number and is no different than a separate payroll ID. If the person has two employments, you still ned a way to distinguish the two employments and putting that on the end of the NINO doesn't make life easier. With a single submission at year end, HMRC could simply count how many P14s you submitted for that person. That isn't an option under RTI and leads to the payroll ID.

HMRC's handling of mistakes around the payroll ID and the disputes that arise is terrible and leaves employers with nowhere to go, but that doesn't mean that the ID requirement is unnecessary.

Duplication is in theory still a problem when changing software/accountant at the start of a new year. You are setting up new employments instead of continuing the old ones but it isn't as big a problem because there's no overlap in the figures being submitted. The old ones will be closed when they've not been paid for a while and it will largely solve itself. You could see some oddities with tax codes at the beginning.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By PBH64
27th Apr 2015 12:36

Two factor identification?

Charliecarne said,

"Surely it is also time for HMRC to merge the Accounts Office Reference and PAYE Reference, as a second reference number for the same employer is surely redundant?"

I'd be nervous about that. Fat fingers and automated systems are dangerous bedfellows. Having to quote both correctly proves the link. Only having one and all you have to do is to luck upon a valid combination and your data or payment could end up anywhere?      

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Izabella8:
By Charlie Carne
27th Apr 2015 12:57

Two references for the same employer

PBH64 wrote:

Having to quote both correctly proves the link. Only having one and all you have to do is to luck upon a valid combination and your data or payment could end up anywhere?      

Following that logic, we should have lots of references in case the first two are "lucked" upon :)  So long as the reference is deemed complex enough to be secure, splitting it into two is confusing for clients and unnecessary. In any event, when making a payment, you only use one reference, so the second only serves to prove ID when calling HMRC and doesn’t stop the payment ending up “anywhere”. It adds complexity for no increase in security. Other security questions can be asked when calling in to prove ID, instead of having multiple references for the same entity.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By pauljohnston
27th Apr 2015 14:42

@charlie

Thanks for this great suggestion and indeed since most HMRC payroll offices in in the same place it would make sent to change to Accounts Office REf.

But do you think HMRC would agree.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By geoffwolf
27th Apr 2015 17:35

Seems to me

that this is an HMRC problem.

I employee on 2 payrolls with the same employer is cumulative for NI anyway. I taxpayer with 2 or more separate employers comes up on different employer references anyway.

My understanding of RTI was to enable income from any 1 taxpayer to be accumulated as the year progresses, thus simplifying (if possible) PAYE codes and tax credits and benefits.

Therefore if the Revenue computer programme has been correctly written the NI No should be the only ID required.

Thanks (0)
Replying to norstar:
Tom McClelland
By TomMcClelland
27th Apr 2015 20:41

Multiple simultaneous employments

geoffwolf wrote:

that this is an HMRC problem.

I employee on 2 payrolls with the same employer is cumulative for NI anyway. I taxpayer with 2 or more separate employers comes up on different employer references anyway.

My understanding of RTI was to enable income from any 1 taxpayer to be accumulated as the year progresses, thus simplifying (if possible) PAYE codes and tax credits and benefits.

Therefore if the Revenue computer programme has been correctly written the NI No should be the only ID required.

Employees sometimes have multiple simultaneous employments with the same employer. For example they may do 2 part time jobs with different NI table letters because of different pension schemes (this happens particularly in public sector or some large private employers). Without multiple employee IDs HMRC can't tell whether the second payment notified in a pay period from the same scheme is a correction or a second employment in that scheme.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By psimonparsons
27th Apr 2015 20:29

NINOs are not unique in employment (necessarily)
HMRC keep records for each employment instance.

The Payroll ID acts as an identifier often for the employer as well as HMRC. They are often used for automated handling of tax codes, so often they will identify the payroll service, client and employee. That way tax codes and Student Loan notices are then applied automatically.

When transferring employees in a continuous PAYE scheme employment, notifying the old payroll ID is wise, else HMRC may accidentally create a duplicated employment.

You may think that as a transfer takes place at the start of the tax year all will be well. Don't be fooled. The payroll may reconcile, but it is likely that HMRC will have two open records and start issuing secondary employment tax codes such as BR, D0 and D1. Employees may get really upset, especially as the codes are generally issued cumulatively.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By geoffwolf
28th Apr 2015 09:18

OK

Therefore the only employers that need employee ID numbers as far as HMRC is concerned would be those that have more than one payroll.

Thanks (0)