It is now standard practice for HMRC officers to introduce themselves (if requested) by their first name alone, when speaking on the telephone. There is no other identifying feature, and of course the first name means diddly squat when subsequently trying to refer to a previous conversation.
The IRS in the USA have a system that appears sensible to me: The technician is issued with a unique identifying reference code which they quote (without being asked, I might add). So you can refer to a particular individual without naming him or her.
I hope someone who reads this and attends the national Working Together meetings can take this point forward. Everything else that happens in the USA migrates over here eventually, and this is past due.
In fact it is not clear to me why they do not identify themselves by their full name anyway. I can sort of understand it from a personal security standpoint, but they are happy to specify their full name in written correspondence, so what is the difference in principle?
Clint Westwood
Related resources
Replies (12)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Rant
Aw c'mon guys give the HMRC a break. We all know from experience that those we get to speak to on the phones are usually not the brightest knife in the drawer. Expect them to remember a number as well as their name, whatever next!!! They can barely remember their first name, I'm quite sure expecting any more would tax ('scuse the pun) the poor dears!!!!
These being those ?informed ?intelligent? persons that issue issue P6 info to companies that ceased to exist; send penalty notices to us when we have submitted everything online and have submission receipts to prove it; insist that you personally pay your clients bill as they have your details on their system and take the 'jobsworth' stance when you try to inform them they are incorrect. 'We don't make mistakes'.
My worry is that Inland Revenue was never the cleverest department at the best of times but at least when we could talk to our local office we could eventually get some agreement. Now since the advent of national call centres, the operators are so remote that they have no interest in resolving anything. Finally to add insult to injury they teamed up with the Customs & Excise and now have access to unlimited powers,
To be fair there is the odd person who seems to know what they are doing but in the main it's very hard going. Especially this time of year when we are met with 'we are very busy as we have a high volume of calls, goodbye' and are summarily cut off.
Val Hunter
Call Centres
I have worked in practice since 1990 and prior to that had 10 years with HM Inspector of Taxes. in those days calls came straight through to you about your allocation, you got the file and spoke to the Taxpayer (yes not customer) or his accountant. The system worked. You built up relationships with people and could remember specific cases (even today).
Today I called HMR&C to go through, in my opion, very dubious "security checks" to be asked by "x" having given the national insurance number "Is this a person or a partnership?"
I won't go through when I was a lad...... but you begin to wonder about improving the service????
And we are having a new Taxpayers Charter?
Why doesnt someone at the Revenue think hang on - lets go back to basics?
Clint...
It's not that it wouldn't work in practice, it's just that I think the staff would resist it.
It would solve many problems, as long as they could remember their own numbers.......(there I go again!)
You say it will never work
and yet it has already proven to do so. We just have to copy it; not test it.
Good idea....
...which is why it'll never work. I can almost hear the arguments with the Union reps as Beryl 28202820 twitters on that she's "Not just a number, but a person as well".
However, I do participate in the Working Together world, so I will raise it at the next meeting. Unfortunately, it is still a number of months away due to the Revenue not having yet launched the "new" model Working Together.....don't ask...
the other side of the wall
What Clint seems not to realise (or perhaps he has forgotten) is that individual responsibility/accountability for cases, queries, projects, whatever is the antithesis of 'company policy' at HMRC these days. There some exceptions - for example, you can deal with a named Client Relationship Manager if your client is a big business dealt with by HMRC's 'Large Business Service'. If it's a Very Big Business you can and probably do get hold of Dave Hartnett in person (or even a government minister)(even if you pay no CT or very little. I digress). For everyone else, including those lucky enough or stupid enough to still work for HMRC, we have to try to conduct our business with the department through its 'contact centres'.
I, too, deplore the false familiarity of call centre phone fodder using their first name. But it's the same with the banks, insurance companies... HMRC's chiefs would claim this is a 'modern service' and of course 'modern' was the highest of Blairite accolades (HMRC always implements 'current thinking' 10 years after everyone else). And HMRC's ExCom reckon that their call centres are broadly meeting their 'customers'' needs because the increasing number of phone calls from them means that they want to conduct their business with HMRC by phone! (they conveniently overlook the fact that many parts of HMRC don't reply to post for months on end or 'lose' it in the system as it is distributed to processing offices that have no particular connection to the taxpayer's adrress or their sources of income.)
These changes are probably too far advanced to be able to turn the clock back to the days of personal allocations for Inspectors. But if you keep complaining about the poor service you are receiving from the department, at the highest level and also include MPs and government ministers, they are going to get fed up. Whether that produces any improvements I couldn't say but at least you will have aggravated the main culprits for the parlous state of the tax administration in this country!
btw, I could have mentioned the irony of Clint and others not using their real name on this site. But then I know, its not quite the same thing.
Security, or not!
Totally agree. How come the Revenue can phone us as Agents and expect us to divulge clients personal information without so much as batting an eyelid. We have also been asked to pass security, despite the fact that they phoned us in the first place!!!
I recently had a young man (no name given) contact me from the Revenue regarding a ltd company client and when I refused to speak to him without proof he was who he said he was, he became very abusive. Eventually he gave me a number to call him back on, which turned out to be a generic helpline for personal taxpayers! Nor was there any record of his call on my clients Revenue notes.
And another thing, why do we have to jump through so many security hoops each time we phone up anyway. Surely quoting our agent ID number would be pretty good security - I am sick of parroting our agent address, which anyone with half a brain could get from the Yellow Pages? I've even had clients fail security themselves!!
Thanks Simon
Well I did not comment because this is the first time I have seen this article.
Names and numbers that is excellent and I think it should rolled out immediately.
Jane I agree entirely I will only use a forname if I know that person (Sorry but was not sure if this post qualifies)
It's the way things are
when did you last call or get a call from anyone such as a bank, insurance company or similar where they gave you their last name? Personally I just loathe the whole so hello Jane now you are talking to Julie bit.
And when they ring out of the blue and then ask you security questions (my bank has done this) they seem amazed when you suggest maybe they need to convince me who they really are first.
I think the ID number is a great idea mind you. They could still give first names as well. It should be applied much wider than HMRC - perhaps for once they could start a trend.
Do unto others
If HMRC ever phone me about a client I always ask security questions. Occasionally this has ended up in arguments but usually no problems.
Also, when they tell me they are recording the conversation I say : "No problem, so am I"
They know
EXACTLY who they are talking to, so why can't we have the same information?
And while I'm ranting, why is it we have to go through their "security" but we can't put them through ours.
Next time, ask them for their postcode, first line of address, date of establishment at that address, and their shoe size.
AND I'M DISGUSTED THAT WITH 220 READERS YOU ONLY GET 2 RESPONSES!. What a bunch of wimps. What does it take to get you going?
comment
I am resigned to expecting almost anything from the Government department that has the spectacular effrontery to call taxpayers customers.
If - heaven forfend - any of the misguided marketing morons at HMRC has recently had a Happy Meal at McDonalds, it will become HMRC policy for persons attending its offices to be ushered into the grilling with an Inspector by a mute grinning clown wearing a red wig.