Where can HMRC improve its service?

The survey doesn't include the ability to talk to the same person when your issue isn't resolved within a reasonable time frame. I know there is now the AAM, but they only kick in when you're at the head banging and wall stage.

incorrect advice given by HMRC to the SL company, system poor and now run by 'automated' SL1 forms which have brought into the charge class 1 earners who are self employed for tax...moening an over deduction on gross income.

If HMRC included on their online services the amounts they have received for PAYE/NI similar to the personal and corporation tax statements, this would be really helpful. Many times they allocate to the wrong period and just getting them to tell you what they have allocated where is a headache, even if you do manage to get through to them on the phone!

The inability to see online PAYE payments is very annoying.  We could give clients a much better service if we could see the mess HMRC staff and the computer are making with payments throughout the year.

I would agree with Chris, lack of "ownership" of issues creates big problems, both from the users point of view (explaining the same things numerous times) and HMRC's point of view as it means the staff simply dont get any feedback about their actions which means they are in no position to learn and improve.

Apart from that it looks to be a good range of common issues.

I get very annoyed when I receive a letter from an individual at HMRC with a phone number on it, but when you try to call, it is a call centre and you have zero chance of speaking to the author of the letter.

And please PLEASE can they stop referring to taxpayers as "customers".  I think that annoys nearly everyone.

I always thought the Latin O-level might have some use.  At least we are asking who will guard the guards?

In some cases, I have the direct lines to the individuals in HMRC dealing with the work I do.  The result is we (jointly) get things done more quickly.  That could be because I am dealing with competent indviduals who take ownership of the work.

In the other cases, I deal with call centres where they have limited access to records and, as soon as it starts to get technical, results in "I'll have to email the person dealing with it".  Result, my time wasted, call handler's time wasted and the chance of a reply, about as much as you have of a prompt postal reply.

Between 1992 and 2007, I never had cause to have a client contact their MP over HMRC handling of their affairs.  SInce then at least 1-2 per year.

HMRC staff seem to be disillusioned, as are we, with a management that -

1 rolls out Soviet style 5 year plans on an annual basis;

2 has a mission statement that makes you wonder if it's not made up of social workers;

3 has the management capability that would, in a real businesses, give jobs for life to insolvency practitioners; and

4 cannot order enough paper to produce statements of account (did 31 July come early and catch them out?) and believes it us that needs sorting out.

If we are to be "regulated" by HMRC it needs to have standards at least as high as our own.  Whilst we have clients, we must maintain acceptable standards and practices; if we do not the clients will go elsewhere. 

We need to maintain standards to survive, HMRC does not.  It chunters on about targets for acceptable service standards.  The targets are not set at what should be acceptable but what it thinks it might acheive.  If it cannot have too high a level of outstanding post, the aim becomes not to deal with all of it but to deal with the easy part so as to meet the target. Then with the remainder either part answer a question or ask for more information so it's not recorded as outstanding.

I originally wrote to HMRC on 02/06/11 requesting a large (£10.5k) overpayment refund on my client's 2010-2011 PAYE/NI account (I should point out at this stage that the 2010-2011 P35 had gone in on time).

Having not received a response to my letter, I phoned back a month later only to be told that they couldn't say whether or not they had even received my letter, let alone responded to it.  I was advised that, based on the date of my letter, I should receive a response by 30/09/10 (a 4 month response time).

Three weeks later (26/07/11) having received no response, I called HMRC again to see if my letter had been received - they could not tell me!  They did advise me to send a fax to the Employer Processing Office stating that my client was suffering financial hardship as a result of this non-refund.  They assured me that someone would acknowledge my fax immediately - they did not!

This Monday, I called them again.  They told me that my fax had been received and was being looked at by a specialist checking team - they also told me that my original letter had probably never been received.

This is an absolutely disgraceful situation as far as I am concerned.  If we owed HMRC £10.5k, they would be banding down our doors if we were 4 months overdue in making payment.  We cannot go to anyone else regarding tax affairs - HMRC are a monopoly with us as their effective 'clients' - we have no other 'supplier' to go to.  If I treated my 'clients' like they treat theirs, I would have no clients left.

Case ownership Case ownership Case ownership.

This is called re-inventing the wheel as that is how it used to be when things worked rather better than they do now, but there was more money in the system to do so. Somehow, there needs to be enough pressure brought to bear to make the higher management understand the need to fight for resources with those ultimately holding the purse strings in Government and at the Treasury, to obtain that state of affairs, on the grounds it would in the end pay for itself by reducing the vast amount of reworking required. And the case would certainly be proved economically if they weren't able to effectively cast most of that cost onto the agent community as they are doing now.

Agree that perhaps this is the key issue. Generally it is very difficult to get someone to take personal responsibility.

Having seen the dept from the inside, it is a crying shame that the undoubted many good staff are overwhelmed by a sense of helplessness & hopelessness, and the mgt hasn't a clue.

The answer is not necessarily more staff - there are plenty who aren't pulling their weight - but breaking the mammoth down into manageable units that have clear responsibilities, particularly in terms of dealing with geographical areas, specific employers, etc. Then they can build in accountability for those smaller units.

There is also a strong case for some kind of "wiping the slate clean" to enable HMRC to simply catch up - ie looking at whether they close queries automatically back to a certain date to enable them to get on top of stuff again. Or having an overtime blitz for 3 months.

What is the registered office for HMRC?

Every company has to have a registered office.  Service of documents on a company is effective if made on the registered office.  What is HMRC's?

We wrote to three addresses (including the S98 Notice team) about a meeting of creditors in a voluntary liquidation and still a petition was received (at the new RO, being our Head Office address) on the day of the S98 Creditors Meeting.  HMRC kindly agreed to withdraw their petition, subject to costs etc., but creditors suffer as a result of this additional cost which could easily have been avoided....  So, why don't HMRC have an address upon which service of a document, properly referenced etc. can be regarded as effective service...

Like Louise I also have clients waiting for PAYE refunds from end of year returns, the largest being one of £2800 and one of £5600. Both P35s were submitted early April followed by written requests for repayments (as you now have to write begging letters to get your own money back). I have phoned and been told, more than once, that refunds are 'delayed' and just yesterday I was told that the larger refund has been 'passed on for authorisation'. When I asked how long that would take her initial response was 'I have no....' but she stopped short of, possibly, 'idea' and rephrased it as 'at the moment we have no timescale for that but judging by the date it was passed on it will probably be at least another week plus 10-14 days to get the payment processed and posted by 2nd class mail'. And the other one..................not processed!

And this morning a client who never normally pays anything late (seriously there are people who do that!) has had a phone call from HMRC because they have not paid Month 4 PAYE which is now a whole two days late!! If they don't pay within 7 days apparently HMRC will be taking further action.

Shouldn't this work both ways. I have myself rung the Business Payments Support team on behalf of clients and been lectured at some length on the legal obligations for a company to pay over taxes etc. But HMRC themselves take no notice if you complain that repayments are not being made. If HMRC was run as a business it would have long since been wound up by its creditors for non payment of its liabilities. And they would never had made a 'profit' because of the inefficient way it is run. 

It's time they practised what they preach.

The online self assessment client information does not include the name and address of a client's tax office. Correspondence and statements arrive from many different offices, so it difficult to know which is the correct one to put on their tax return.

I also agree with earlier comments re PAYE payments and how they are allocated. One of my clients once paid early, anf then got chased for the payment because it had been allocated to an earlier period. Sometime payments are allocated to an earlier year for no apparent reason, Much time is wasted trying to contact them by phone and get issues resolved.  Repayments are very difficult to obtain, and I still haven't seen any final statements for 2010/11 

It would be nice to be able to put the cis tax suffered on the CT600.  Or if that is not changed, not have to wait months and months for the refund from HMRC. 

An agent dedicated line for corporation tax would also be nice!

It would be much more efficient to just register with HMRC once online (including going through the activation process) rather than having to repeat this for every service eg CT, VAT etc

Several instances, all losing money for HMRC.

1. Overseas client had UK rental income, not reported for 5 years. Spent nearly 10 months trying to get UTR, as client had no NI no. and no need for one. Then got 2 UTRs.We sent in current year return and schedules of prior year rents and a cheque for c.£10,000 tax liability in November 2010

HMRC processed the 2009/2010 tax return, ignored prior years and repaid client over £5,000!  No notice /correspondence to us as agents. We have now resubmitted prior years again, with full tax returns, to make it easier for them to process. They have just acknowledged 2 of the 4 years, although all were sent in together. We wait to see if they ever get it right.

2. Two instances of clawback of EIS relief. No specific boxes or form available for this, so it goes in the Additional Information box. In the first case HMRC totally ignored despite two reminders and tax paid was refunded.

In the second case, there was considerable delay and confusion before it was finally sorted.

3.Client who had failed to complete SA returns for 5 years, where main untaxed income was rents. Total liability was about £12,000. Returns and tax payment were processed satisfactorily but to our surprise no penalties or surcharges raised for previous years. HMRC had just given up on him. Not very fair for clients who are only slightly late and suffer standard penalties etc.

It would be very helpful to see a list of tax payments made /amounts refunded as with self assessment. On a recent case where client paid by instalments and had losses carried back, it was very difficult to reconcile the tax refund without this information.

I speak as a retired long term employee of the, then, Inland Revenue and my views reflect those of almost all of my ex-colleagues (most of us middle or senior managers with technical training).  We are all dismayed by not only the length of time taken to reply to any enquiries or letters; the lack of accurate action or sometimes any action at all but that it is all too frequently accompanied by rudeness and aggression.  The old Inland Revenue was not perfect but it did have an ethos of  trying and usually succeeding in getting things right and trying to ensure that every taxpayer was treated fairly and courteously - those were the days!  The other point to mention is that I find it difficult to charge clients for the endless amount of time spent in issuing reminder letters; making follow-up phonecalls and then, all too frequently, being forced to make a complaint simply because HMRC are both unwilling and, it would appear, unable to get anything right quickly and efficiently. It appears that the only thing they do quickly is issue demand notes, frequently for tax that is not due.  It saddens me to say that I do not think it is fit for purpose any longer.  The amalgamation with Customs & Excise was a mistake.  Bigger is not always better. I have a number of horror stories of different degrees of magnitude and I am sure I am not alone!

On a number of occassions I have contacted the Revenue about a client for whom I have been acting for many years when all I of a sudden they are unable to discuss the client with me because they do not have a valid 64-8. What ever happened to the original 64-8?  This causes a lot of additional & unnecessary work. JFW

just be glad you are not dealing with the tax office in Ireland (Eire), they are a whizz at not making refunds, not giving any reference numbers and refusing forms which they say are not quite completed correctly. We had a client dealing with 2 Irish based contracting companies , he was told after the year end he should have actually registered as an Irish taxpayer (as a company) and then 4 departments repeatedly demanded new tax certs as they were left on the 'wrong file' and on the 'wrong desk'... eventually we managed to pin down one inspector and get the money back but only after months of head banging! 

I have just received a letter from HMRC today telling me a client has paid their PAYE late last month.  Often what has happened is they have paid and HMRC have allocated the payment to the wrong period.  Any number or address on the letter to contact them and try to set the record straight?  Oh no.  I guess they believe that they are not capable of making mistakes, which is an enormous part of the problem.

Friend approaches me in desperation having tried eight times to make meaningful contact with HMRC to explain why she thinks her code number is incorrect.  State benefits of around £7500 are included in coding whereas actual rate of benefits for the year is around £3500.  Also, once correct coding calculated it is being set against wrong income source - the one that is and will remain so small that the balance of allowances will not be utilised and the overpayment situation, which it has now become apparent has existed for at least four years, will continue, involving annual application for repayment.  Given HMRC's lack of response to contact this is not a scenario either of us wish to have.  64-8 completed and submitted by post - no UTR and none needed as all sources are Schedule E and total income below £25000.  I write to the office in Cardiff that has issued the coding notice explaining the incorrect level of benefits, requesting that the coding be amended and set against the appropriate source with code BR being applied to the other two sources and attaching a schedule covering the last four years showing all sources of income; tax deducted; coding operated; allowances due; tax due and repayment arising for each year.  Four weeks later I get a letter from an office in Liverpool saying that the tax code has been upated in accordance with the information provided and new codings willl be issued in the next few  days but that the previous year has been reviewed and no repayment is due.  A week later another letter arrives, this time from Cardiff rather patronisingly advising that I obviously do not understand that state benefits arise on an annual basis and are taxed as though received on a weekly basis no matter the frequency that actual payments are made.  Then the code numbers arrive and they are the same as before and still set against the wrong source.  I write again immediately to Liverpool requesting the figures used to calculate that no repayment due and forwarding again  the actual figures which show clearly that a repayment is due for that and the 3 preceding years.  I also write immediately to Cardiff pointing out that I perfectly understand how state benefits are taxed but that in this case the benefits have changed on a year by year basis because of changing circumstances as detailed in my original letter and attach a further copy of the schedule sent with my original letter detailing exactly the rates of state benefit received in all the years in question.  Two days later I write again forwarding copies of the official advice documents received from the benefits office confirming the figures I have now provided at least three times and comment that we have now had three sets of incorrect coding notices and still set against the wrong source.  I address this letter to the Complaints Manager.  Three and a half weeks later I receive a letter from the Customer Operations Complaints Service (in Bootle - so we are moving around the country quite a bit) advising that they have asked for the papers relating to the complaint and that a member of the team will be looking at them but that it might take a while as "we are currently receiving a high level complaints" (I wonder why!). "We deal with complaints in strict date order" "Currently we are reviewing complaints within 25 working days".  This matter was started in February and it is now September and it will probably be October before anything is done and I am not holding my breath in the expectation that they will get it right then!  I think we have gone way beyond the patch and plaster solution - there needs to be a radical rethink and overhaul

I arranged a time to pay arrangement over 4 Months for one client and 6 months for another.

Both of the arrangements failed as the clients paid one of the instalments early. The collector advisd me on one of the cases that the tax was due "on" a date. When I reminded her that it was due "by" the date I was told that the system was set up in this way and she reluctantly after taking advice allowed the time to pay arrangement to continue.

When discussing issues like this with HMRC staff, you can tell the dispair in their voices. It can not be easy to work in an environment where you are constantly reminded that the system lacks logic or where you have to behave like a parrot 

IThe agents helpline has been very good since being set up.

Once making contact with an officer it would definitely be enhanced by that person taking ownership of the matter. It is a complete waste of time having to repeat yourself especially where incomplete or inaccurate notes are made on their computer

Send it to -

Mr Mike Clasper CBE, Chairman of HMRC, 100 Parliament Street, London, SW1A 2BQ. 

It at least gets acknowledged promptly; perhaps it is the only office where post gets through. 

Perhaps if we all directed all of our post to HMRC at that address, asking for an acknowledgement, we will know it has been received.  Otherwise it seems there is no point in posting anything becuase it is not only deniable but also denied.

You could also post it, with a payment for a nominal amount, say 10p, to the Collector of Taxes, making sure the letter refers to the payment and requests a receipt; the Collector is required by section 60(2) TMA 1970 to issue a receipt when required to do so.  That way the receipt is an acknowledgement not only of the payment but also the letter that requested it.

mydoghasfleas has a good idea there.  If we all did this we wwould be making a definite statement and just maybe things might change for the better.  It would certainly get leaked to the press.  I send all my post "Special Delivery Next Day Signed for" but some HMRC offices refuse to sign and the post office just leave it on the desk.  I have just sent off a 64-8 for a new client by this method but  although it was posted on 2nd September Royal Mail can only confirm that it left their office for delivery.  In other words probably the most inefficient part of HMRC at Longbenton are refusiing to sign so that there is no come back on them when they lose post.  It is a simple AA job to do this.  When I was with the Revenue I remember AAs binning their post to clear their desk when unsupervised (most of the time).  It looks as if this practice is still going on in CAA. Longbenton, and if they dont sign for their post they dont have to answer it.  What a farce.

TheAncientOne