Reasons for disenrolement by HMRC

"HMRC intend to refuse to engage with agents who abuse HMRC staff."

I too have been on the end of abuse from useless, feckless HMRC staff and if all it takes is a complaint by one of these, we are all going to be in trouble. Especially if they manage to "lose the tapes" of the telephone call.

I hasten to add that I do not respond in kind - that is totally counter-productive - but I do get a bit terse at times, especially if the person on the other end of the phone really does not have a clue what he/she is talking about.

And anyway, what on earth does "refuse to engage with" actually mean?

ShirleyM - that is a good point and I will seek claification from Mike Clasper at our meeting on 1 August. Is there anything else anyone would like me to raise - or even attend themselves? Contact me on andrew.scrivens@cch.co.uk.

I have always taken the attitude that them being rude to me does not mean I have to retaliate.  When approaching them I always go in with a silly quip to get them onside and try to keep the coversation light and frothy - my belief is if you are friendly they do tend to bend over backwards.

Having said that I had the misfortune to overhear a conversation with an HMRC official and a locally respected Accountant and I would not speak to my worst enemy the way he did.  I made a casual comment to my HMRC's collegue that I thought this chap was a bit over the top and the answer was "We can't stant that arrogant ****!" (something to do with a fatherless person).

Cases like this are likely to arise where ever humans are involved - perhaps we shoiuld have another ethical code introduced to be polite - I treat them as fellow humans and they usually understand I want to help them and they invariably help me - ONCE I GET THROUGH TO THEM ON THE TELEPHONE - it is usually the handset that gets bashed after listening to daft messages only to be told all the lines are engaged.

Good afternoon all. Sorry I have been silent for a couple of weeks, but I needed to take a break to re-group, and do some long overdue paid work!!

Anyhow, I can chip in a bit here.

First, I'll quote directly from the consultation document :

"HMRC deals with agents through consent and in a relationship of trust. In a small number of cases, the agent’s behaviour can be such that HMRC can no longer deal with them on these terms, for example where an agent has a record of behaving in an unprofessional manner, verbally abusing HMRC staff, and at the extreme, where an agent acts dishonestly in a more structured way."
"HMRC has exercised this judgement on the authority of the Commissioners of HMRC very infrequently, but in the most serious of cases it has withdrawn permission for an agent to do business on behalf of their clients with the department. These decisions are supported by a notification to each of the agent’s clients to explain the position and advise that a new agent will need to be appointed or they will need to comply with their obligations direct. The standard to be applied for any decision not to recognise an agent must be ‘necessary, relevant and proportionate’. HMRC will publish procedural guidance on this in the light of recent developments to ensure that the process is understood and rights to representation are clear."

And from the consultation questions : "In the most serious cases how should HMRC best address their responsibility to take action against an agent by refusing to deal with them? Should that decision be informed by an independent panel?"

So HMRC already accepts - or has at least floated the question that disengaging with an agent is a very serious matter, and might need supervision by an independent body. One might argue, that leaving this to an independent body would also be in HMRC's interests as the authority will not get sucked into debates about being unfair to tax agents who stand up to them. If this aspect is supervised by the profession (in whatever way) then this is best for all. So if our response to HMRC includes this, and the other responses say the same, I would expect talks to start about how that body might be constituted.

Now to reasons for disengaging. Let's leave dishonesty aside as that is a separate consultation. What I have been told is that only when a consistent pattern of behaviour is unacceptable, will HMRC consider acting in this way - and I would invite those meeting HMRC on this to put this to them. The tone of the condoc is that HMRC will always come back to the agent first to raise issues with them, before taking any other action. And of course, don't forget that most of the phone calls are recorded so it will be pretty easy to know "who said what and when".

In fact this raises another issue - one which many AccountingWEB members have raised. If you are dissatisfied with the treatment you get on SA or PAYE calls, then make a note of the date and time and complain. I am absolutely certain that HMRC is as keen to root out bad behaviour on their own side as well. We should complain more often so that steps can be taken if we are dealt with rudely. (To be truthful it has not happened to me). Here is where you should look for more information.

I'll just add that taking action against an agent or taxpayer for abusive behaviour is nothing new, and rightly so - no employer should permit their staff to be abused in the workplace.

I really do think that is this aspect is controlled by a fully independent body then we have nothing to fear. HMRC can make representations to that body, but so could a client or even another agent. Obviously for those who are already members of professional bodies to whom complaints can be made this is a duplication, but if the body also supervised "expulsion" then it would offer the protection that we need. This is what we have to say in the response (assuming that members agree?)

I'll also add that at the meeting I attended we were told that HMRC has only actually refused to deal with an agent twice in the last 5 years or more. So it's not as if this is something that is going to happen every day.

As to a new "code of conduct" - it's all in "Your Charter" actually! I know some are a bit underwhelmed by this, but it is there in black and white!

It means they hang up, so you have to wait another 20-30 minutes to talk to somene again, and it is unlikely to be the same person!

I thought they started the process of disengagement years ago. Wasn't it the day they stopped answering the phones in the local offices?

That was very useful indeed.

Surely Mrs Smith has a human right to instruct her neighbour Mr Jones to act as her tax agent in dealings with HMRC? How can HMRC refuse to deal with Mr Jones, when presumably they wouldn't be allowed to refuse to deal directly with Mrs Smith? Is it not Mrs Smith's right to choose who she wants to deal with her tax affairs. If HMRC won't deal with Mr Jones, then presumably Mrs Smith could set up online access (with Mr Jone's help) and give him her passwords etc., to carry on doing exactly what he did before?

OK, that's simplistic, but what if Mr Jones is the tax partner at a multi-office practice with thousands of clients. Then disenrolment becomes a massive problem for lots of people. How would it work? Is it just Mr Jones who's banned - could his assistant Miss Black register for the firm instead? Or is it the firm that's banned - if so, what's to stop them renaming themselves and carrying on under a new identity. Do HMRC have the right to prevent a firm from operating? Are they not offering themselves up for massive compensation claims by firms who they've caused to lose their livelihood?

Have HMRC actually thought about any of this?

We need two levels of agents. A basic level for basic submission (as we have today) - open to every man and his dog, whether accountant, solicitor, IFA, or neighbour. Then an upgraded level for professionals with the ability for the self-serve and other enhanced services. Disenrolment must be only for the upgraded level to remove the privileges of the self-serve etc., but not to remove their ability to operate a business.

The system will collapse if Mrs Green's niece has to apply to be a self serve agent just to be able to submit a tax refund claim for bank interest!! Surely the system needs to continue to allow for a simple agent process, for the vast majority, say 10,000 agents, and then the self-serve upgrade option for the top/busiest/largest 1,000 or so?

Unless it's a two tier system, it's absolute madness. HMRC are going to end up dealing with far more taxpayers directly because they've scrapped the system of being able to deal with agents. People use agents for a reason, whether it be because they're deaf, or blind, or can't understand the tax system - HMRC are going to find themselves stretched to deal directly with such people, where previously they could have adequately liaised via a friend, relative or neighbour by virtue of a simple form 64-8.

Exactly the same with firms. OK, let HMRC "punish" a firm and disenrol it, but have they thought through how much extra work they'll have to do directly. I'm sure that many clients of a disenroled firm would stay with them because of other services etc and general happiness of the business relationship. There's no guarantee they'd move away to other firms. So that's a massive own goal, as those clients would start dealing direct - probably more likely to make far more phone calls, wrong submissions, etc.

Not a very clearly thought through strategy!

I absolutely agree that no HMRC employee should have to accept abuse as a part of their job. However I have serious misgivings over the idea that HMRC can refuse to engage with an agent.  Rebecca I have had cause to complain about the conduct of HMRC staff, 3-times over the last 18-months.  On each and every occasion HMRC claimed not to have a recording of the conversation and the person dealing with the complaint took the line 'well there is no recording of the conversation so I have to believe the staff member's version'.  I have been accused of being agressive towards an HMRC officer when what I said to the officer was ' I do not think that you can competently deal with my query, let me speak to a manager or supervisor of the section that you work in'.  The offcer claimed that this coment was abusive.

With that experience behind me how is it possible to trust that HMRC would not abuse the right they may take not to engage with an agent.  In any dispute with HMRC I fearlessly put my client's point of view. I think in an assertive manner but some people, who are unsure of their own knowledge and challanged by my argumnts as a consequence, may take the view that my assertivness is agression and then refuse to deal with me as an agent.  I would always have to consider how I put my client's point of view accross in disputes and possibly be inhibited in puting my client's case accross by the knowledge that HMRC may take the view that I was being agressive or abusive and hence stop engaging with me and  stop me from earning my living and acting for all of my clients.  Such is simply not an acceptable situation, it concentrates too much power in the hands of HMRC.

Rebecca is it possble that when you talk to HMRC, becaue of your standing and position that you tend to talk to higher grade officers?  If that is the case then your experience may not be typical of the experiences that agents have in their dealings wih HMRC. I mean no disrespect in making this comment and it may be that my experience is not typical of agents experiences as a whole.

In my opinion I think it critical in any system of agent representation that HMRC do not have the power to select which agent they work with. 

knd regards

Jeep

I have had the same experience as Jeep when complaining about an HMRC member of staff.  It was a women in Taunton Collection (or whatever name they call themselves now).  I had taken over a desperate case where the previous accountant had lied and said that he had filed all years over the past 5 years and hadn't and had also destroyed a lot of the paperwork.   I had to get whatever papers I could get together and present  some sort of bookkeeping and  accounts as there was a live VAT Enquiry and I could not do accounts for the Tax side of it because I didn't have any net figures until the VAT Enquiry was complete.  The previous accountant had presented VAT Returns which generated a repayment to the client every quarter for 4 years  (it was a licensed minimarket).   A mega mess.  The Taunton Collector said very rudely that she didn't care about the VAT Enquiry, she wanted the figures and TRs  otherwise the shop would be cleared out.  When reminded that she was  merged with  Customs and was now HMRC she said that she wasn't and she didn't care what Gordon Brown said about the merger making agents' life easier, she wasn't co-operating and they (IR) took no notice of anything he might say. Her language was appalling and when I complained in writing she denied it all and I was told there was nothing to prove who said what.

This type of occurance makes the present events regarding registering and HMRC being able to dispense with the services of an agent a concern.  Agents/Accountants  have to act with integrity or they dont have a business because no one wants to deal with them and they lose their clients.  On the other hand, HMRC staff have a large organisation to back them up and they have no idea what it is like to trade in the "real world".  Lying comes easy if the piper never has to be paid. Ruining someone's business is par for the course, after all we have all had experience of their mess ups and do they care?  We all know the answer to that.   Going back to the case I mentioned above - the outstanding Returns were completed and had been with HMRC for ten whole days when the Bailiff called to clear the shop of stock. The Returns had not been registered in and the computer had not been updated. This would have ruined my Client.  Did they care ? Slightly - they sent him £100!  The Client gave (literally) the business away to someone  and went  back to his birth country as he had had enough. There was little or no integrity exercised on the part of HMRC. 

HMRC actually writing to our Clients to say they would no longer engage with us ?- |i dont think so. This should be vigorously oppoosed.

TheAncientOne

... someone (Rebecca?) could hold HMRC to account and get an explanation from them as to why the records of these telephone calls have "gone astray". It seems to be becoming clear that HMRC do NOT record calls since if they did, this sort of gratuitous incompetence and bad manners simply would not occur.

It would seem that the profession to a man (woman, other) agree that HMRC cannot be the final arbiter of who is allowed to practice, so that will certainly be ex[ressed loud and clear in our response.

As to the other issue - HMRC staff. I would very much like to progress this, and will have a think about how that might work. I think the two specific cases you have referred to are good examples. I'll make some initial enquiries and look for ideas about how this might be taken up. Have either of you made a written complaint about the way you were spoken to? I'm guessing that you did given your responses.

And yes, I'm aware that my name is pretty distinctive (I'm the only Rebecca Benneyworth in the UK, and from my family tree work the first for a couple of centuries) and as well as dealing with very senior people at HMRC who are always most respectful and professional, quite a few of the ordinary HMRC officers I "meet" in my daily practice life are well aware of who I am, so I'm of course likely to see only "best behaviour"! So I really appreciate your information which will I hope enable me to take the issue up.

since GB took over at HMRC attitudes have changed especially where compliance is concerned. A practical example of this is "reasonable excuse". We all know what that means however HMRC have their own meaning and they have become very firm and forthright (although not abusive) in their application. I would go as far as to say sometimes HMRC actively encourage confrontation, especially if they think they are in the right. Look at the wording of some of the letters that are sent out.

GB installed a very frightening attitude in HMRC but there are signs that "common sense" may well be making a "comeback".

Te next round of self-serve will be very interesting.

Maybe we should all have tape recorders on our phones........

HI JOHN WOULDN'T HOLD YOUR BREATH,I'M PROBABLY THE MOST PLACID PERSON ON THE PLANET,,BUT THIS WEEK MY BLOOD WAS BOILING AFTER 4 DIFFERENT PHONE NUMBERS FINALLY GOT THROUGH,..TO THE MOST INCOMPETENT FATHERLESS PERSON IV'E ENCOUNTERED..I REGISTERED FOR SELF ASSESMENT..STILL WATING FOR UTR HAVEN'T BEEN PAID FOR 2 WEEKS NOW..THEY WOULDN'T EVEN TEXT IT TO ME..AFTER PROVING WHO I AM..HOW IMPORTANT IS THIS TOP SECRET NUMBER..?..ANYWAY I'VE TAKEN DEEP BREATHES,,& LAYDOWN IN A DARK ROOM...& CONCLUDED YOU HAVE TO PLAY THERE GAME BY THERE RULES...BEING RUDE OR WHATEVER WILL GET YOU IN DEEPER APICKLE THAN YOU WERE BEFORE...MY ADVISE IS EVEN BEFORE YOU PHONE TELL YOURSELF ....TO EXPECT THE BIGGEST MORON ON THE OTHER END..PREPARE YOURSELF FOR 20 TO 30 MINS  OF COMPLETE NONSENCE...KIND REGARDS DAVE........