Share this content
17

Missing PAYE month 10 (submission receipt received

how to correct?

Didn't find your answer?

Hi all

It would seem that the Month 10 filing PAYE RTI hasn't reached/been processed by HMRC.  I have a successful submission receipt (I use Moneysoft), and client has paid across money due.  Month 11 has been processed properly, so the payment has now been matched against the wrong period.  Does anyone know the best way to sort this out?  Should I just resend the Month 10 FPS or does it require a phone call?

Has this happened to others?  I would appreciate any advise on how to correct.

Thanks in advance.

Replies (17)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Wanderer
08th Apr 2021 18:16

"Payroll Manager will automatically include updated year to date figures in the next available FPS. "
https://moneysoft.co.uk/support/payroll-corrections-in-the-current-tax-year

You will NEVER get anyone from HMRC to sort this out over the phone & will get conflicting advice from them, probably further compounding their error. I'd just leave it.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wanderer:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
08th Apr 2021 18:40

I agree that getting HMRC to resolve it is a Sisyphean task (pre-Covid I've managed it by exchanging emails and then a face-to-face, but now ...)

It is tempting to "just leave it" (after all the YTD figures should ensure the correct taxable earnings and tax figures are lodged - so long as they don't lose the month 12 FPS as well)!

However:
a) not everything calculated is on a YTD basis (specifically NICs - so the missing file could mess up the State Pension entitlement of all the employees, even if they don't find out until many years in the future); and
b) you do need (somehow) to get the payments allocated to the correct tax month - otherwise HMRC have a tendency to make matters worse via mis-allocations that cause the balance to oscillate back & forth between over/under payment (with a knock on the door sometimes resulting)!

Thanks (2)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By frankfx
08th Apr 2021 22:09

Hugo Fair wrote:

I agree that getting HMRC to resolve it is a Sisyphean task (pre-Covid I've managed it by exchanging emails and then a face-to-face, but now ...)

It is tempting to "just leave it" (after all the YTD figures should ensure the correct taxable earnings and tax figures are lodged - so long as they don't lose the month 12 FPS as well)!

However:
a) not everything calculated is on a YTD basis (specifically NICs - so the missing file could mess up the State Pension entitlement of all the employees, even if they don't find out until many years in the future); and
b) you do need (somehow) to get the payments allocated to the correct tax month - otherwise HMRC have a tendency to make matters worse via mis-allocations that cause the balance to oscillate back & forth between over/under payment (with a knock on the door sometimes resulting)!

May be worth writing to HMRC.

Copy the above into correspondence.

You want to be assured everything is tickety boo.

Obtain that assurance in writing.

Out of interest

Would unsuspecting universal credit claimant be caught out?

Thanks (0)
Replying to frankfx:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
09th Apr 2021 11:25

Yes ... amongst the other impacts that I didn't mention. If any employees are also receiving UC, then a missing FPS will have impacted the amount of UC they receive.
A condensed extract of the FPS is passed automatically in near real-time to DWP, who use it to validate the claimant's statement of employment earnings - and where necessary to adjust the amount of UC paid out. In the case of a missing FPS this is likely to have caused overpayment of UC ... which when all becomes clear will be demanded back (by which time it will no doubt have been spent).

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By Wanderer
09th Apr 2021 11:35

Hugo Fair wrote:

However:
a) not everything calculated is on a YTD basis (specifically NICs - so the missing file could mess up the State Pension entitlement of all the employees, even if they don't find out until many years in the future); and

Why do you say that? We all know that (other than directors) NIC isn't calculated on YTD basis.
BUT
All YTD NI values are submitted as part of the FPS. Look at your FPS submission and you'll see them all there.
Thanks (0)
Replying to Wanderer:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
09th Apr 2021 12:14

Why do I say it? ... because it's true.
I know that "YTD NI values are submitted as part of the FPS", but this is solely used by HMRC (to assist with reconciliation of their 'collection duties') as part of the unconverted legacy from the days of P11s, P35s, etc.
But the relevant part of the individual FPS files (specifically all the contribution values within thresholds and per category letter) are passed to DWP so that they (not HMRC) can manage records of NI contributions ... which in turn effect many things including State Pension entitlement.
So no FPS (for the week or month or whatever) means no figures for that period added to the individual's record of NI contributions.
Hence ... HMRC happy'ish, but DWP not (or rather blissfully ignorant).

Thanks (0)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By Wanderer
09th Apr 2021 12:27

Hugo Fair wrote:
... (specifically all the contribution values within thresholds and per category letter) are passed to DWP so that they (not HMRC) can manage records of NI contributions ... which in turn effect many things including State Pension entitlement.

Those individual contribution values details are also passed on a cumulative basis:-

NIlettersAndValues
NIletter
GrossEarningsForNICsInPd
GrossEarningsForNICsYTD
AtLELYTD
LELtoPTYTD
PTtoUELYTD
TotalEmpNICInPd
TotalEmpNICYTD
EmpeeContribnsInPd
EmpeeContribnsYTD

Doubt if DWP update their pension entitlement records more than once a year.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wanderer:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
09th Apr 2021 12:52

Not sure why you're so determined to make an issue over this - particularly based on your (incorrect) 'doubt'.
I don't generally voice opinions on this forum (at least not when facts are available), so my statements in this thread are based on knowledge. Although I can't directly reveal my sources (meetings took place under Chatham House rules), I have sat in many meetings with DWP (and with the UC technical team) going through the data flow of their processes.
HMRC's procedures have always been based on deriving 'this period' figures via the difference between consecutive YTD values (the 'this period' figures in an FPS are ignored by standard processes but available for cross-checking by humans) ... whereas DWP's procedures are based on receiving 'this period' figures direct (no derivation from YTD) so their accuracy depends on what they get via HMRC (as 'this period' figures).

Thanks (0)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By Wanderer
09th Apr 2021 13:04

Okay.
But I note that this is the second time in 3 days that, when challenged on a point, you have adopted the 'I am right, but I can't justify it' mantra.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wanderer:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
09th Apr 2021 13:24

Sorry (honestly), but when did I do that previously?
I'm usually boringly procedural, so will happily review (and retract/correct if necessary) anything I can't justify.
The stuff above (about DWP etc) was only provided (despite being explicitly non-attributable) because there is in nothing in the public domain to disprove your assertions (or indeed my conflicting ones), but (in this case) I happen to know the answer!
I know that sounds exactly like the mantra which you've allocated to me ... but c'est la vie.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By Wanderer
09th Apr 2021 13:35

Hugo Fair wrote:

Sorry (honestly), but when did I do that previously?

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/employment-allowance-in-a-tw...
Thanks (0)
Replying to Wanderer:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
09th Apr 2021 14:11

OK ... fair cop.

I'd forgotten about that thread, but I'm not sure you can 'blame' me for stating "I can't provide details on a public forum (or even direct to you) for obvious reasons of confidentiality" ... given that you'd asked me to "give any examples where this has actually occurred" - and the 'this' was rejection by HMRC of an EA 'claim' (as just data within an RTI EPS) when processed by HMRC. By definition, any examples would either have looked like hearsay or contravened confidentiality.

This whole area (PAYE and all the associated interactions of Pensions, UCs, etc) was the centre (bane?) of my life from the first twinkling of RTI until a couple of years ago ... so I spent a lot of time behind the scenes at (and in meetings with) the relevant people in HMRC, DWP, TPR and even occasionally the Cabinet Office. That doesn't make me anything special, but does mean I gleaned a lot of insights into the (often poor) state of procedures & operations underpinning those areas.

However I'll happily 'step out of the room' when threads appear to which I can only respond using such unattributable sources ... and focus on the fun ones even if my knowledge there is less deep.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Hugo Fair:
avatar
By Wanderer
09th Apr 2021 14:41

Hugo Fair wrote:

However I'll happily 'step out of the room' when threads appear to which I can only respond using such unattributable sources ... and focus on the fun ones even if my knowledge there is less deep.

Nope, don't do that, your insight is valuable.
Thanks (0)
avatar
By NYB
09th Apr 2021 10:11

I was told they don't look at what month it should be in. Its just allocated to the first period outstanding. We are at the end of the tax year. Providing the amount paid over the year balances with what is due that will suffice. (I would think)
It helps if you can access HMRC account - some can and sonme can't

Thanks (0)
Replying to NYB:
avatar
By Hugo Fair
09th Apr 2021 11:18

OP said "Month 10 filing PAYE RTI hasn't been processed by HMRC ... but client has paid across money due. Month 11 has been processed properly, so the payment has now been matched against the wrong period."

So one of us is misinterpreting the impact. My view is that Mth 10 is missing any figures on HMRC's systems (including therefore any payment due) - which is why the Mth 10 payment has been allocated against the (successfully filed) Mth 11 FPS.
Unless the Mth 10 figures are 'found' and inserted by HMRC, the Mth 11 payment will be allocated against the Mth 12 FPS ... so what will HMRC do with the Mth 12 payment? Presumably treat it as an overpayment in 2020-21 ... which will lead to the oscillations to which I referred in my earlier response.

Or to put it more concisely ... you say "Providing the amount paid over the year balances with what is due that will suffice." True as a statement, but what will HMRC think is due for the year if they are missing the figures for Mth 10?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By bernard michael
09th Apr 2021 11:28

I predict you'll now get 2 letters. one claiming there is an underpayment and later one saying the client is in credit

I've had this situation several times with clients over the last few years. Any attempts to try and get HMRC to reconcile their figures with actuality will be to no avail.
Now, provided I'm happy the client is up date and his figures reconcile I ignore the letters. They stop after about 4 attempts

Thanks (0)
Replying to bernard michael:
avatar
By Jo Nokes
09th Apr 2021 19:02

I’ve had similar issues when I took over a scheme in month 6. I wrote several times, the last ones addressed to the complaints manager on top of the usual address. Eventually, I got a phone call promising that the team would sort it out. And lo and behold, half the problems were sorted. I’m still waiting for the second half to be resolved

Thanks (0)
Share this content