Share this content

HMRC Performance Statistics

Fact or Fiction ?

Didn't find your answer?

My income now consists of pensions, the state pension and the private pension.  Obviously, I need to swirch my personal allowance to my pension income as I'm no longer self employed (the practice income after 5th April 2021 was nugatory).

At the moment, I have a K1357 code on a month 1 basis. The correct code, as calculated by me is around 450M, give or take a few points.   It should be a relatively simple ask to move the personal allowance to be set against the pension.

I've now asked for this to be done four times.  Each time, the online form is marked as dealt with but the code remains the same.

So the obvious conclusion seems to be that HMRC aren't dealing with the matter at all.   They're just saying they've dealt with it so keep their performance targets up to scratch.

Am I paranoid ?   Any thoughts ?   I just need them to stop stealing £300 a month off me, really.

Replies (17)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Paul Crowley
13th Aug 2021 15:12

My business partner has a run of similar issues every year. Similar because they keep changing his coding to not agree with the telephone call
Very simple
PAYE with no benefits or pensions. All related to savings interest.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By zebaa
13th Aug 2021 14:56

My tax code changed 9 times last year, without me doing a thing. Perhaps you should count yourself lucky. For the past goodness knows how long they have not been able to get mine correct. I've long since given up trying. The good news is it prompts me to get my SA return in asap and in fairness the refund happens usually within a couple of weeks. So, just look forward your refund.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By rmillaree
13th Aug 2021 15:05

if you ring em up they should be able to sort over the phone
Just ensure tehy use cumulative code and remove any gibberish that should not be there.
obvious question i have here is exactly what makes up your code ? that may explain where it has gone wrong.

Thanks (0)
Replying to rmillaree:
RLI
By lionofludesch
13th Aug 2021 16:36

rmillaree wrote:

if you ring em up they should be able to sort over the phone
Just ensure they use cumulative code and remove any gibberish that should not be there.
obvious question i have here is exactly what makes up your code ? that may explain where it has gone wrong.

In round numbers

Allowances 0
Less State pension £9300
Less restriction to recover unpaid tax (there isn't any) £4500

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Not Anonymous
13th Aug 2021 23:06

I would hazard a guess that the root cause is one of two things,

An estimate of your adjusted net income being > £125,140 or

Your record has a special flag set (No Allowances) which, temporarily, prevents you getting the Personal Allowance. I think this may have been used for some people who categorically didn't want allowances in their PAYE code due to other income i.e. self
employment or partnership income.

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/paye-manual/paye103065

Either way I suspect interaction with a human at HMRC's end will be required to alter this and get a more palatable tax code issued.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Hugo Fair
13th Aug 2021 15:17

Usual problems (as experienced by me in similar circumstances) are:
1. AI decision (within HMRC system) that a one-off transaction must of course repeat forever;
2. Ping-pong battle between over-rides (set by human at HMRC) and re-sets (by blasted AI again);
3. Sheer incompetence of HMRC systems in unintentional collusion with lying staff (those that don't do what they've promised they've done).
When all 3 strike together, as has been known, I revert to the approach suggested by zebaa!

EDIT: All this is despite my insistence on bringing my account to zero every year (and rejecting any option to 'sort out the balance' via next year's tax code)].

Thanks (3)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
13th Aug 2021 20:55

I agree
HMRC has decided computer knows best in all matters
Human overide must be overidden

Same with CT
HMRC looking for non existent tax filing
HMRC CT will not accept date changes, tell Co house
But companies house appear not to talk to HMRC if accounts filed are dormant

Thanks (0)
Avatar
By I'msorryIhaven'taclue
13th Aug 2021 22:22

Well the core of your question is, I suppose, do we swallow and accept statistical fact or fiction?

If you are prepared to swallow a lockdown "R" rate of greater than 1 that has, by some inexplicable miracle, diminished to a less than 1 "R" rate now that we have cast aside our masks, opened up social venues, and by and large returned to work environments then welcome to the world of statistics.

If you believe that house prices are on the rise, in spite of the fact that the lending rate can hardly diminish any further to counterbalance that (not to mention that the laws of supply and demand dictate that this is turning into a buyer's market), then welcome to the world of make believe statistics.

Performance statistics? Ha! My [***]! Many years ago in the nineties, my Jag got broken into on the drive (with the loss of an expensive window and cd player). The local constabulary informed me that, although they would dutifully record details of my reported crime, it would not count statistically as a "crime" unless I were to report the matter at a police station in person. So, determined as ever, I managed (after quite some effort) to locate a (main) police station that was open for business and prepared to record the break-in as an actual crime (statistic). Needless to say, the miscreant gypsies were never aprehended.

All of which leaves me wondering whether - given the obstacles presented over simply getting the report onto the books in the first place- whether we can actually trust the people who record, process, and publish our vital statistics. My gut feeling is to side with Disraeli.

Thanks (0)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
boxfile
By spilly
14th Aug 2021 13:52

I have a relative who worked at the ONS. Still don’t trust a word they say.

Thanks (0)
Replying to spilly:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
14th Aug 2021 15:00

Without knowing your relative, I'm in no position to comment on the individual ... but to be fair I know quite a few research/social scientists who collate and analyse data - and all seem to be both competent and honourable.
Neither of which attributes can be often applied to the Directors and Ministers responsible for making subsequent public pronouncements - after they've twisted the facts to suit their objectives (or merely to protect their posteriors)!

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
boxfile
By spilly
14th Aug 2021 20:09

It’s the tales they told of flawed input data and skewed interpretations by those who want it to serve their purpose that worried me. As you say, most of the people there seem to be quite dedicated, and they often work to quite tight time-schedules on some matters.

Thanks (0)
Replying to spilly:
By SteveHa
16th Aug 2021 13:18

Statistically, neither do 11 out of 10 people in the general population.

Thanks (1)
Replying to I'msorryIhaven'taclue:
Kitten
By Hazel Accounts
16th Aug 2021 11:22

I'msorryIhaven'taclue wrote:

My gut feeling is to side with Disraeli.

This

Thanks (0)
RLI
By lionofludesch
14th Aug 2021 16:11

Just to clarify, the thread wasn't about my code so much as HMRC marking tasks as complete to beef up their compliance with targets.

There's no way this task has been completed satisfactorily. The code's not changed, they've not contacted me and they've not said why they've not corrected it. They've just marked the job as done.

Thanks (0)
By petersaxton
14th Aug 2021 23:34

I had a client due a refund of £9k so I requested it online.
She didnt receive it.
I again requested it online.
She didn't receive it.
I phoned HMRC and told them what had happened.
They explained that somebody had put a block on payments to her but without giving a reason. They took of the block and she's just got paid.
Obviously nobody gets questioned about their actions - incompetence is expected.

Thanks (0)
Replying to petersaxton:
RLI
By lionofludesch
15th Aug 2021 10:47

petersaxton wrote:

Obviously nobody gets questioned about their actions - incompetence is expected.

And there's the crux.

Thanks (0)
By Paul D Utherone
16th Aug 2021 12:26

In answer to the main question: "Fact or fiction?" the answer must be the latter, aka a complete crock...

Thanks (0)
Share this content