Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update:   A couple of weeks further along, and the charge has now been cancelled. In that regard alone the outcome is acceptable.   In the interim ...  There have been additional demands from CPP/PE in the most glorious and laughable obfuscated prose/legalese I have pressured PALS I have chased past correspondence I have contacted other Execs I have involved my MP who has now acted I had primed the local newspaper who was planning a piece this week   However ...   - PALS didn't respond until I complained in person after almost 2 silent weeks; then promised to help and a couple of days after that advised that the Hosp had said thye had no authority over the Parking Co. I told them the hosp had told them wrong, explained why and pressed them to go back ... since when I have heard nothing despite chasing them. - UHCW Trust Estates & Facilities Dir. is yet to respond, though contact was *only* a week ago. - UHCW CEO/Chief Administrator has never acknowledged/replied-to any of my letters/chases. - UHCW CEO/Chief Admin reacted immediately to MP letter however by passing it and my correspondence to Estates and Facilities Dir to deal with, who in turn replied to MP with cancellation, who yesterday copied that to me for confirmation received this morning.   Passing thoughts ...   - People who could/should have been dealing with it for the injured party elected not to. - PALS has good intentions but is useless if they don't have a leaflet on it - will follow the Hosp line on everything else without questioning their words. - The Trust's Administration is not approach-friendly, in this instance stating "... car parking managed by a Private Finance Initiative Service Provider"  and that therefore  ".. Trust has no power ...  in the processes applied by CPP .." Oh, really?!  - Trust accepted CPP's word that the equip't was not faulty as claimed, not the rather more reliable word of a visitor having been put to considerable inconvenience at 5 a.m.and who went to some length with staff to deal with it instead of buggering off home. - CPP "have agreed (to cancel) as a gesture of good will." WHAT?! THEIR good will? THEY are willing to let MY failings pass and kindly make allowances? Couldn't be more self-delusionarily wrong!   Sadly, I can guarantee that what is actually important in all of this will not get any attention   - providing an alternative payment method for patients/visitors for when the equipment malfunctions ... at any time not just the wee-hours ...  and tell staff ...  and put notices up. - UHCW taking any notice of their culpability in CPP's unlawful breaching of GDPR in accessing keeper details now that it has been brought to their attention. Head In Sand.       All of this comes of course from pulling-up the drawbridge and deny, deny, deny. It is the knee-jerk response of almost all large organisations, but one for which there should be no place in a Hospital Trust that should strongly want to distance itself from uncaring attitudes and irresponsible practises.   Anyway ...   Anyone finding this because of a similar issue of their own, my strongest advice is to heed the advice given to you on this forum - it put me straight on to the right path and got rid of some nervous uncertainties which makes all the difference to peace of mind, something that CPP relies on to add pressure for those who aren't aware of what's what.   My thanks again to all who kindly helped.            
    • At the investigation yes, they are seeing if they can build a case.   Like the police interview you before deciding if you are going to be charged. Not everyone is charged as some people have done nothing wrong!   If you tell people what the investigation is about before they go in, a proportion will use that knowledge to prepare really good lies. That's why companies don't do it.   I would have a read up on the ACAS site of guidelines for both investigations and disciplinaries.    https://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1874
    • So they've back-tracked on their original statement that his insurance has been voided. If it's not been voided and was in force at the time of the accident there is no role for MIB. MIB gets involved if a driver was uninsured at the time of the accident, but 1st Central are now telling you he was insured. In the response you have had from MIB that is what they say, he was not uninsured. Whoever it was who told you that the policy had been voided was, by the sound of it, telling you something that simply wasn't true.   I've never heard of 1st Central but from their website it's clear they are an insurance broker not the actual insurance company https://www.1stcentralinsurance.com/who-we-are  As a broker they are acting for their client, the driver, and have no duty to be impartial in considering whose fault it was.   So looks like you have no option now other than to start a small claims court action against the driver.
    • Pass all of these letters to mib when you start the claim. Eventually they will have to pay up.
    • Only that I will be updated this week.    So what your saying then is I should recieve a letter inviting me for a disciplinary hearing and attend a disciplinary. I thought the disciplinary was to give you the outcome of the investigation.     It seems a little odd that I have an investigation meeting I am asked question and given the chance to reply to the questions. It seemed odd that in this meeting I was shown evidence against me that I had not previously seen. Surely I should have been given the evidence first before being asked questions about it. It feels like they are building a case against me at the investigation meeting......
  • Our picks

Juggernaut

Anyone overcome the high bar for late appeals regarding child tax credit, or for 'official error'?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 748 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hello, I've been over the HMRC guidance and related sites lots of times but still unsure.

 

Apparently nowadays you can show 'exceptional and relevant' reasons for late Appeals (Mandatory Reconsiderations) - examples given are being in hospital or out of the country. The longer it goes on, the better the reason needs to be.

 

What about when the person was around but they have chronic language/cultural barriers that led to a delay, combined with the fact that the HMRC Compliance Office phone was and is apparently set to permanently engaged (not sure if the notorious Concentrix).

 

The person did send a letter a little past the 30 days deadline but the Compliance Office decided it didn't have quite the exact required wording to trigger a Mandatory Reconsideration, so they simply ignored it. There's then been several further months of inaction until now.

 

Alternatively, 'Official Error' review can be requested for a long time afterwards. But can anyone explain what counts in laymans terms? In this case it would be the Compliance Office phone number never answering (acknowledged as a 'recurring issue' by an HMRC official); the stated reason for the original query appears invalid (their own website specifically says child benefit cannot be considered in deciding main responsibility - at least if there's a dispute which there wasn't here); a decision to remove a child without specific evidence (only lack of reply to a confirmation question - this strategy has been criticised in tribunals before); not contacting the other responsible parent (logically one had to be responsible if the other wasn't according to them).

 

Thanks in advance for anything.

Edited by Juggernaut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what you've said, is this is a case where claimant wasn't getting child benefit, which triggered a check of child responsibility? Was the child over 16 so the ftnae also an issue?

 

If so, why weren't they getting child benefit? I think that raises enough of a red flag to allow hmrc to begin investigations. Sometimes one parent gets child benefit and their ex gets TC, which in itself is fine hence can't decide based just on that.

 

But, if claimant doesn't respond they breach their responsibilities then hmrc can end claims.

 

Language barriers not a good reason normally, as customer is expected to seek help if needed. The phones thing is ridiculous but doesn't stop customer sending what they can by post. Last I knew, they were getting very strict about the time to request reconsideration and it doesn't sound (so far) like the claimant has a good reason for late reply or late MR request.

 

No harm in trying though, I guess, if they have sufficient evidence to post showing responsibility / ftnae if needed and point out first letter was meant to be MR request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks GamerNic for your thoughts. You are correct there was an agreed temporary change in who claimed the smaller amount of Child Benefit for second child, based on written statement from a registered charity advisor (who has since moved to an org supporting bankers) that this would not affect Child TC, double-checked with HMRC by phone. It's young kids; I don't know what ftnae means.

 

Accept HMRC later writing just to clarify. But just as customers have a duty to respond in a timely way, I believe the office with a non-working telephone number is also violating the HMRC customer charter causing confusion, especially with some language issues and cultural issues (origin as discriminated-against ethnic minority in oppressive state, albeit now a British citizen through residence and work). And there's tribunal decision, the details don't matter as they're not the same at all but this one from 2015 seems to be saying ('here we go again'!) HMRC can't just end an ongoing claim based on an assumption with lack of evidence? [eh I can't include links but hopefully you'll find it or a summary of it if you search for tribunal "2015 UKUT 490 AAC"]

 

Yes I am sure there is sufficient evidence and supporting statements to show main responsibility, so worth a try for MR and Official Error. Anyway one of the two parents must be the main responsible yet somehow they've managed to award neither parent; if they can remove an award without a reply surely they could have transferred it to the other parent (who is on their system) rather than cancelling.

Edited by Juggernaut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately hmrc in recent years have put the onus back on the claimant as in law they have a responsibility to ensure records correct & to reply to queries within timescales blah blah....

 

A claim cannot just be transferred as hmrc don't know where kid lives if moved out, new person must apply.

 

(Sorry, ftnae = full time non-advanced education, something that trips up quite a few non uk nationals).

 

I don't disagree with your points but experience from the "other side" as it were is what makes me think I know what they'll say. Worth a try though, best of luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the Committee of Public Accounts (HC998) have stated in April 2017 in regard to the compliance office problems in 2016: “HMRC must ensure that all claimants who wrongly lost their tax credits have their awards fully reinstated” and “It must also show that it has learnt definite lessons to ensure the appalling level of customer service is not repeated by HMRC, which itself has not always delivered a good service to customers.” so we'll see. Thanks.

 

Also just for anyone else this might be relevant to, the Chief Exec of HMRC in March officially promised a change this year so that "Rapid reinstatement of payments – in those cases where a customer has had their payments changed because they don’t engage with us during the enquiry, but come forward with new evidence before the final renewal date."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...