Phone call just now:
"Hello, can I speak to Mr Client please?"
Who's calling?
"HMRC"
We are his agent, this isn't his number.
"Can you get him to call us on 0845xxxx ref 123456789"
That's 9 digits - are you sure? If you're HMRC, we are his registered agent, can we help?"
"We are calling on behalf of HMRC"
So you aren't HMRC?
"No"
They were a debt collection agency. Makes me mad. Interestingly a google of their name throws up on result 3 an article called "[name] recovery - idiots". Result 2 calls them idiots also...
Related resources
Replies (10)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
They are using external collection agencies now
If you receive a payment demand or letter but can't pay
"Your debt may be referred to a private debt collection agency and during 2010-11 HMRC will be using the following agencies to pursue some debts on their behalf:
Commercial Collection Services Ltd
Credit Solutions Ltd
Fairfax Solicitors Ltd
iQor Recovery Services Ltd"
File an immediate formal complaint with HMRC head office -
Claiming to be HMRC when they are not is anacceptable -
Administration of Justice Act s40 1. (c)
"a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she: -
(c) falsely represent themselves to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment"
Whilst this specifically relates to commercial debt, the same principals apply.
.
We got one this morning, its 0845 3021427 which is the debt collection unit. Its not worth ignoring them as they just ring back several times.
Asked to speak to the client as if I have them all standing lined up in my hall, didnt even seem to be aware I was the agent.
Even stupider than the normal calls asking you to disclose confidential information.
.
Asked to speak to the client as if I have them all standing lined up in my hall, didnt even seem to be aware I was the agent.
Posted by ireallyshouldkn... on Tue, 31/05/2011 - 14:41
Brilliant mental image. Haven't had them call our office yet, but everyone here can be facetious.
Wind them up
When they ring - put them through a HMRC style ID check - tell them they have failed to pass security - and hang up.
How's about this for an ID Check?
When phoned by debt collectors posing, sorry acting for HMRC, as C_D says give them a simple ID check.
Agent: "Can you give a brief description of Mr. Client"?
Debt Collector: "err. No."
Agent: "I am sorry, you have failed the KYC (Know Your Customer) aspect of our ID checks. Please can you reaquaint yourself with our client and then call back".
No matter how good their database is (and we all know it's a mess), I bet they don't have a description or photograph of your client. If they do then you should really start to worry (photographic surveilance?)
:O)
In seriousness, HMRC should remember that you can't get blood out of a stone and when the banks stop lending often the only option that clients have is to get a "Time to Pay" agreement out of HMRC or liquidate. I doubt that it is in anyone's interests to force businesses to the wall, but taxes can't be ignored, even in times of financial difficulty.
.
In seriousness, HMRC should remember that you can't get blood out of a stone and when the banks stop lending often the only option that clients have is to get a "Time to Pay" agreement out of HMRC or liquidate. I doubt that it is in anyone's interests to force businesses to the wall, but taxes can't be ignored, even in times of financial difficulty.
Posted by frustratedwithhmrc on Fri, 03/06/2011 - 17:37
And this is where HMRCs crass stupidity shows.
A case I saw was a small hotel owing £30k tax.
Owner asked for time to pay offering £2k a month over 15 months.HMRC refused, petitioned for bankruptcy.Owner made bankrupt, HMRC received nothing as hotel mortgaged to the hilt.Hotel of course closed. still standing unsold and empty.30 full and part time staff thrown out of work.Cost of 30 lots of unemployment benefit per annum - say (£100/wk x 30 x 52) - at least £150k +
Just where is the logic in that? Are HMRC actually acting in the taxpayers best interests by adding £150k a year to the benefits bill.
It is still an offence (and offensive)
Under the Commissioners for Revenue & Customs Act 2005, section 30(1):
30(1) A person commits an offence if he pretends to be a Commissioner or an officer of Revenue and Customs with a view to obtaining–
(a) admission to premises,
(b) information, or
(c) any other benefit.
Perhaps we ought to tell HMRC (the real ones that is) that they are aiding and abetting.