SA repayment delays: The full story

Latest article for information. The Press will always highlight the worst affected financially but I wonder sometimes what is true. The guy owed £6,000 after being on emergency code for 10 months is a good example.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/money/article-1192843/Tax-refund-chaos-set-worse-Revenue-changes-systems.html

Latest word from HMRC confirms:
The security checks are part of 'process now' and not anything to do with 'check later' - 'now' presumably being a concept of anything up to 3 months and contradicting anything posted on the SA record.
They can't tell us what is involved in checking security that takes up to 90 days as 'this would compromise the confidential nature of the process and render it ineffective'.
Despite the SA record showing the repayment date as the day it went for security checking rather than the day the cheque was put in the post interest is paid, but it is at 0%.
I am advised that comments have gone to the Working Together team.

Whilst the big issue has been publicised as countering fraud, the question has to be asked as to whether HMRC can not actually make the repayments for reasons of government cashflow.

The cashflow question arises because HMRC have been issuing 31 July 2009 tax-due payslips about 7 or 8 weeks before the tax is due - out of character for HMRC to be this upto date / in advance.

I suppose if some taxpayers were misled into paying their 31 July liabilities early then this would provide cashflow / funds to make the long overdue repayments to other taxpayers.

As an alternative radical solution to any alleged cashflow / HM Government running out of money issues I suppose some extra bank notes could be printed and the bank notes then be sent by courier to the taxpayers (I think the out of date phrase "increase the money supply" has to be replaced by a more fashionable "quantitive easing" phrase in this context !).

Partnership suffers £20k+ bad debt in February 2009, claim to reduce payments on account made( online clain did not work) claim accepted & applied on line for refunds, receipts reveived 4 March saying it would be processed within 5 days. On 25 March phoned HMRC to be advised husband's refund sent on 17th(he had not received it) & wife's had not been processed even though we had requested it online. "To speed thingsup" they would issue a cheque.
1st April letter recieved from HMRC saying wife's refund had been chosen for security checks!
Although this was pursued by several phone calls nothing happened. We have now completed & filed 2009 Tax Returns and the final liabilities have been calculated and the wife WILL NOT receive her refund. It has been deducted from the 31st July liability.
So much for HMRC helping small businesses. It is a farce, better than an Ealing comedy.

online submission July 2008, telephoned HMRC March 2009 as client had received statement showing credit

HMRC said it 'had gone to the back room for checking' asked how long it would have stayed showing as credit

HMRC said 2 years!

Said I thought online submission was supposed to speed things up, HMRC sniggered

repayment was finally made the next day in the amount of £142.38!!!

Latest word from HMRC is ' and was automatically put on a list to be reviewed prior to the issue of an repayment due.....a procedure that takes place in all cases where an internet return is processed and cannot be avoided'.

Provides more questions than it answers! Some still issued same day, but record is 90 days. SA records remain showing processing date rather than issue date. Still waiting on review of interest entitlement.

I had a client caught up in a manual check after the site notified that the repayment had been issued.
When I challenged HMRC I was advised that it had been issued to another department who were checking the claim's validity.
Can I suggest that taxpayers pay their 2nd instalments to HMRC, but issue the cheque to their spouses/joint account holders for one or two months' checking?
No need to wonder how HMRC would respond!

It might explain the problem(s), but it doesn’t offer much hope of any early relief from the serious problems we and taxpayers are suffering from.

This is just another way of avoiding early repayment of the tax, in order to help out the bankrupt Treasury. All the amounts delayed have been for hundreds if not thousands of pounds.
Several of my clients have suffered this and it has taken 3 months to clear and then only when chased.
The Collector is also putting a false statement on the Statement of Account when he states it has been paid, when in fact he means it has left his department and been moved to another, which is still part of the Revenue.
By saying it has been paid the tax payer says well I have not had it so where is it. It is at this point you get the truth.
This causes very bad feeling by both the agent and the tax payer about the Revenue. So much for working together.

101 Victoria Street, only a mile from me. Personal visit with knuckle dusters required?

Even handier for my solicitors who are in the building next door.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/money/article-1191282/Unending-torment-taxmans-Room-101.html

Proof positive that open government is an illusion in the UK. Guess those MP expenses are given priority over repayments of genuine overpaid tax claims. No wonder the majority no longer use their vote.

"But because of HMRC phaffing (being polite) clients have recieved statements showing refunds paid as early as 16 April but still not received by us, they have called HMRC who have confirmed payments have been made and not mentioned the security issue. Frankly they are lying and fobbing off my clients and then I get the flak."

This is a deliberate tactic by HMRCs. Divide and rule and generally undermine the taxpayer/agent relationship. All you advisors who fell for the "Working Together" propaganda of recent years failed to realise this was all just window dressing PR. Most who work in HMRCs are set to the default of being motivated from a position of deep mistrust of; the freedom to choose; entrepreneurship; and wealth creation in general. Ironic really. UK plc- Divide & Rule.

I met an HMRC manager by chance at a training day. He confirmed my suspicion that following so many government data processing errors and control failures, eg disks on trains, lost in post, CTC overpayments etc, that HMRC are increasingly risk averse. As a consequence their response has been to severely tighten their repayment processing controls to the point of strangulation. The IT system wasn't designed with the current controls in place so there is no system status to reflect the reality of "passed stage 1 checks, awaiting stage 2 review".

ive not encountered anyhting as drastic as you state just yet but its definitely comng; when it does i will be demanding a letter to the client to assure them that the delays were there fault and to clarify the actual date the repayment was made.

I have clients who have nigh on accused me of holding onto their refunds, why?

Because on a certain class of our clients (CIS) we agree to accept refund and deduct our fees then forward on balance, all done online generally client will get refund same day as they would anyway.

But because of HMRC phaffing (being polite) clients have recieved statements showing refunds paid as early as 16 April but still not received by us, they have called HMRC who have confirmed payments have been made and not mentioned the security issue. Frankly they are lying and fobbing off my clients and then I get the flak.

I have serious concerns as to whether this is going to cost me 20 clients next year, as I am not happy with the services I have been able through no fault of my own provide, so god knows what my clients think.

HMRC understands the additional work that this causes in trying to establish the status of repayments, and that this can undermine client confidence in their agent.

HMRC should automatically write to the customer (sic.) when security checks start, to inform him that there will be a delay of uncertain length before the repayment will be made and that this is not the accountant's fault.

HMRC should jolly well pay for the time that the agent cannot reasonably charge to the client.

HMRC should pay a 5% surcharge where a payment is made more than 28 days late. Sauce for the goose...