| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| nigel |
Posted - 21/07/2008 : 21:03:13
While working on my case I found a section of the Tax Credits Act (2002) section7
quote:
(10) The Board may estimate the amount of the income of a person, or the aggregate income of persons, for any tax year for the purpose of making, amending or terminating an award of a tax credit; but such an estimate does not affect the rate at which he is, or they are, entitled to the tax credit for that or any other tax year
If I've interpreted it correctly they went against the legislation when applied to my case, here's my own case as an example:
TCO receive notification (from who I still don't know)of my unemployment (I never was unemployed)therefore they zero my income and estimate, "for the purpose of making, amending or terminating an award", but they then applied that estimate to my award and forced it into payment. If I've read correctly they shouldn't have done that, as I supposedly had nil entitlement (I'm still arguing I didn't have a valid ongoing claim). In the legislation it says "such an estimate does not affect the rate at which they are entitled to tax credit for that year. So if I'm interpreting this correct if my entitlement was a nil award then it should have stayed a nil award until they received a claim renewal form from me.
Have I got this correct? Can anyone confirm, or refute my theory.
If it is correct then TCO broke legislation relating to my case.
Regards,
Nigel |
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ali M-W |
Posted - 15/12/2008 : 07:37:10
Frank Field criticised the government saying that tax credits favoured individuals rather than couples, but here is a different side of the coin where couples who become separate individuals risk financial ruin and effectively have no control over what their previous partner is doing. If there is no understanding shown by HMRC and the Adjudicator, then this needs to go higher - and I would suggest a face to face meeting with your MP and also applying to any charities or welfare rights groups which could add clout to your dispute, Nigel. I'm not sure what 'Families Need Fathers' is doing in the tax credit dispute arena lately, but they might be worth a try. My understanding is that they are more 'mainstream' than 'Fathers 4 Justice', but this might take more exploring. Taxaid or LITRG might be able to help, too. Good luck! Crack this and you will have set a precedent for others in similar situations.
Trinity: No one has ever done anything like this.
Neo: That's why it's going to work.
|
| Alan the Geordie |
Posted - 12/12/2008 : 00:27:17
>>>>> .. how the hell are we supposed to beat them when our own MPs' can't get their voices heard and their requests are simply ignored.<<<
Hi Nigel & welcome back!
That's a very good question that you ask, and one that we should all be asking our own MPs.
No nurse, I said "Are my test results back?" NOT "Are my testicles black?" .. but thanks anyway!! |
| nigel |
Posted - 11/12/2008 : 22:29:40
I have been away from these forums for a while and dropped in tonight to have a catch up. Upon re-reading this thread it reminded me of a conversation I had with my MP shortly after winning my case.
I called my MP to explain that I had won my case and he was telling me that he had sent a letter to Jane Kennedy to investigate the matter further and to write off my half of the o/p, his intention was to get her personally involved. However all Jane Kennedy did was to pass the letter onto the o/p dispute team, the very people who were simply throwing out all of my previous disputes. Passing the buck seems very popular with this government. He did write again to her but she simply passed it over. In the end writing to her didn't matter, I won by other means but how the hell are we supposed to beat them when our own MPs' can't get their voices heard and their requests are simply ignored.
Regards,
Nigel |
| nigel |
Posted - 23/07/2008 : 21:40:19
A letter went out to my MP just today, he is on away from the office until 28/07. He was involved previously but didn't seem to get anywhere. However he will not get away lightly this time he is a tory and I would have thought he would like to be seen in a good light given the current political climate. I'll look at Ali's thread.
Regards,
Nigel |
| auntieh |
Posted - 23/07/2008 : 21:32:12
Hi Nigel
Can I just butt in and ask what your MP is doing about this? In the circumstances that you describe I would have thought there was a cast iron case for HMRC to use discretion and common sense in your case and set aside the request for you to repay. As your wife has confirmed that the money went to her and you were not aware there is surely a moral case for them not to pursue you. Your MP ought to be putting this across most strongly. Also I would think you are just the sort of person the Sunday Times is looking for (see Ali's post on the media thread). Just think of the headlines they could make from this!
I know that morals, common sense and discretion are not words actually to be found in HMRC's dictionary but really..............! Words fail me sometimes.
Good luck
Auntie
"You can dress a pig in a suit but you can't stop it grunting" |
| nigel |
Posted - 23/07/2008 : 21:16:40
BTW I forgot to add, I am not arguing that my ex shouldn't pay it back, she has had it but I am arguing that I should be exonerated from paying due to the circumstances.
Regards,
Nigel |
| nigel |
Posted - 23/07/2008 : 21:01:39
I did already ask about a variation in the amounts owning by each of us. No joy I'm afraid they just aren't interested.
I don't have the original refusal letter though I have asked for a copy on numerous occasions. In a letter from TCO in a previous refusal letter they state "due to the level of household income, you were not eligible for Working Tax Credits" in regards to our original application. As for my ex wife she insists she thought the money came from her visit to JC+ to sign on, it commenced being paid to her one week after first signing on as unemployed. I'm not sure what she thought when the payments continued though. She is a stubborn type and refuses to pay it back until she physically has to ie. court order, however it would be too late for me by that time and would end up paying 50% of the total.
Regards,
Nigel |
| missfroy2 |
Posted - 23/07/2008 : 20:46:14
Thanks Nigel. That has jogged by memory and I have read your case.
I would have suggested the Adjudicators report, but I can see that HMRC have addressed that case.
So the issue seems to be that HMRC are hooked on the failure to report the change of circs (the separation).
Do you have a copy of the letter when you first applied? Was it a letter saying your income was too high, or was it a nil award notice?
I am not sure what your situation is with regards your ex wife, but you say in your last post that if you had received the money you would have reported it. Your ex-wife presumably did receive the money and presumably spent it - did she question where it came from?
One way would be to try and agree with your ex-wife that she repay the full amount since she had the money.
Disputing it is difficult because essentially she is in a different position to you, she did actually receive the money and presumably like you thought there was no claim.
I see the grounds for you not paying anything back I really do, but I don't quite see them for why your ex-wife shouldn't.
Given that at the minute it is joint and several liability, I can see why the dispute team may be refusing to write it off as whilst your situation might warrant it, your ex-wife's doesn't on the face of it seem to (of course it might when the full facts ar eknown) so that means it falls back to you both.
So...DMB area isn't my strongpoint but I wonder if it is worth asking them to recover differently given you didn't receive the money (rather than dispute?)
Finally, it comes back to the change of circs reporting. I guess that hurdle needs to be passed first and arguments around that would seem to rest on what notification was given to you at the time of the original claim?
Have you spoke to any experts on this - taxaid or LIRTG spring to mind for DMB issues.
MF2
|
| nigel |
Posted - 23/07/2008 : 19:54:22
The simple answer is that I never did receive any money whatsoever. If I had I would have reported it. However I had separated from my wife (that is why I never reported my change of circumstances as I didn't know I had a claim) the money was paid direct to her bank account, TCO say an award notice was issued but I can honestly say I never received one and I collected my mail regularly from my ex. I only became aware of the o/p in Oct 05 when a letter arrived at my new address (though I don't know where the info for my new address came from). So they argue that I didn't report a CoC which to a point is correct as I never knew a claim (according to TCO) active. Same as I wouldn't call JC+ to tell them of my separation because I wasn't claiming JSA.
I would accept the TCO ruling if I had actually received the money personally knowing full well that it was incorrect, there would be no argument. My ex has confirmed to TCO that she received all the monies and that they went into her personal account but they won't budge.
Regards,
Nigel |
| missfroy2 |
Posted - 22/07/2008 : 23:16:15
I shall have to think about the Section 7(10) issue. My head hurts this late at night :-)
However on the other issue, and apologies if I have missed something on another thread.
But, playing devils advocate, if I were the person dealing with this dispute I would ask myself this...
Your argument is that to most people the wording would indicate that in Jan 2003 you had no claim. That is fine and let us presume that is accepted as a given.
If you didn't think you had a claim - what did you do when you received presumably large sums (when the JSA marker was incorrectly put on).
I would be surprised if anyone is contesting that this is an official error case - the problem would seem to me to be in explaining why you thought the award was right or under the new test explaining why you didn't correct the award notice issued when the payments started.
However....there could be many explanations to the above. But if I were you they are the type of things I would be addressing as if I were dealing with the dispute that is what I would question.
So we accept that it was HMRC's error that caused the overpayment. But as we know that isn't enough so...
1. What did you do when you started to receive payments out of the blue? (presumably you still thought at this point there was no claim). Did you query them?
2. Did you receive an award notice?
3. Did said award notice have the JSA on it and any income figures?
Please understand that I am not in anyway suggesting that you should pay this money back and that you shouldn't dispute or indeed that you won't be successful, but in my experience it is often useful to put yourself in place of the dispute person and look at it from HMRC's point of view to make sure all avenues have been covered.
Apologies if you have answered these things elsewhere.
MF2 |
| nigel |
Posted - 22/07/2008 : 22:43:33
Thanks you MF2, let me try another approach.
If the incorrect info came from DWP then I can see that possibly my sec7 theory wouldn't apply. However in an internal worksheet I have it states "the overpayment was caused by the JSA marker being incorrectly flagged", right if some TCO processor accidentally flagged the JSA marker when working the claim, then TCO would have had to estimate my income level as they wouldn't be working on information received from a 3rd party source. In this scenario could my section 7 theory be applicable.
On another matter as you seem to know how this all works
I first applied for WTC in Jan 2003, our claim was rejected in Mar2003 "due to the level of household income, you were not eligible for Working Tax Credits". In any interpretation to me that means I have no claim, it is a paradox to say you are not eligible and then say you have a claim. However they insist I had a claim, they then say that it was auto renewed for 04/05 tax period. Now as far as I can ascertain if 03/04 tax period ends 5/4/04 then if you auto renew then your 04/05 claim begins 6/4/05. However my 03/04 claim was not renewed until 386 days later on the 27/04/05. The JSA error and subsequent payments commenced prior to this date. So how can they say I had an open claim when it wasn't renewed until such a late stage and what caused it to be renewed as I never renewed the claim.
Regards,
Nigel |
| Ali M-W |
Posted - 22/07/2008 : 14:18:02
Quite apt that the mysterious Miss Froy says, “What a dreadful journey!” in "The Lady Vanishes". Claiming tax credits is indeed a dreadful journey.
Trinity: The answer is out there… and it's looking for you, and it will find you if you want it to.
|
| missfroy2 |
Posted - 21/07/2008 : 23:14:15
Surely if they received a notification then HMRC didn't actually estimate themselves, they acted upon information received (albeit wrongly) so I am not sure whether the section would apply here?
MF2 |
