Member Since: 17th Mar 2009
9th Sep 2019
Posted mine out Thursday night, only for HMRC to postpone it all Friday morning. Any chance HMRC will reimburse for the wasted time (and a new ‘swear jar’)..?
21st Jan 2016
Unfortunately true csgas...
Whenever the government announced new measures to tackle tax avoidance, it just meant that the method of recording yield would be changed to fit the narrative. Someone high up the chain cottoned on to the fact that the DHSS (as was) were boosting their benefit fraud investigation yield figures by claiming 'notional' yield - speculative amounts saved in future years by the policing action taken in the present. HMRC Inspectors were instructed to do the same to reflect improved compliance yield due to investment in new tax avoidance measures. It started off as including CY+1 but then increased to CY+2 as the need arose to reflect the marvels of efficiency savings - improving yield by working smarter with less!
Years of working at the HMRC coalface have left me suspicious of any performance figures they now quote.
Ironically, they're worse for cooking the books than the ones they're meant to be stopping!
8th Jul 2013
The more things change, the more they stay the same
I left HMRC just over four years ago and this 3-category appraisal was in use then, and had been for a number of years!
The categories back then were 'Exceed', 'Satisfactory' and 'Not Met' (as opposed to the new 'Exceed', 'Met' and 'Must Improve'). I never met anyone, or heard of anyone, getting a 'not met', simply because management didn't want the aggravation of having to deal with the local union reps. 'Exceed' markings were rarer than hen's teeth - never more than one per team, despite management denial of a blindingly obvious quota system. That said, when broken down, the additional pay rise from getting a 'exceed' instead of a 'satisfactory' marking was approximately an extra cup of coffee a day from the tea trolley (approx 50p!). Consequently, HMRC had vast numbers of staff, of wildly diverse performance standards, all being deemed 'satisfactory', whether a genuine grafter or a 'feet on the desk, reading the Sunday supplements'-type!
A 20% quota of 'exceed' markings sounds like a breakthrough for the unions - what are they complaining about? The fact that one can actually say that 20% will exceed their target suggests the targets aren't stretching enough. And judging by the performance of HMRC staff I've had contact with recently, I would suggest there's an awful lot more than 10% that need improvement!
Performance in HMRC will only improve if and when the department puts all of its staff on 12-month rolling contracts. 'Exceed' - you get a genuinely worthwhile bonus. 'Satisfactory' - you get to keep your job (subject to cutbacks). 'Must Improve' - here's your P45!
The ability to coast to a 'satisfactory/met' marking each year coupled with the perception all too many of them have - that they have a 'job for life' - is a fundamental cause of the apathy and poor performance of many HMRC staff.