There are 105000 staff in HMRC and they all need computers and specialist software that only the small majority is "Off the shelf", I can think only of IE ad Outlook that is not manipulated in some way. These people are not employed to or have privileges to alter software that the department has to pay Millions for.
Thats not passing the buck, thats making use of specialist suppliers.
But they can't be certain of the revenue. If the government mismanages the economy to such an extent that people and businesses stop buying then the revenue will not cover the costs.
It was Gordon Brown who increased public expenditure by such an extent that taxes have crippled businesses and individuals.
I'm sure my software supplier supplies software to fewer individuals than the supplier of HMRC software.
If HMRC doesn't ensure their software supplier produces what they want that is incompetence on HMRCs part.
You ARE passing the buck - you just won't admit it.
No, much of the fault lies with the government forcing departments to sign up to poor contracts with their preferred providers. In addition they force their departments to introduce software before it is read and without the correct testing.
Software with very large databases that need access from all over the country would normally require at least 1-2 years testing and development, yet the government forced through tax credits in less than a year and wondered why the software failed.
The same has occurred with it trying to force through online services, it keeps changing the goal posts and allows almost no time for testing. Then by the time the developers are just fixing it, they are forced to start again on some new software as the government has changed the goalposts again.
Do you realise how many complaints quick books and Sage get, but I bet the products are still used by yourself and other accountants, the difference is people expect the government departments to be perfect, the reality is they do get it right most of the time, but I do not expect people like you to ever point that out, you spend your time looking for faults.
Why do you say that? You wouldn't expect to make formal complaints by phone. They should always be in writing.
That applies only to Corporation Tax, which taxes the company's profit.
But NI is not a tax on company profit, it is a tax on the employees' income. It's part of what it costs to employ someone (so are income tax and pension contributions).
Of course. So what? Income tax is also levied on employee wages, regardless of any company profit.
Well, I dare say that staff wages have made a pretty sizeable contribution to wiping out their profit too. Are you suggesting they should not pay their staff?
I'm not sure why you are suddenly talking about "formal" complaints - nobody else has used the word. But I often complain to other organisations by phone, and I do not classify such complaints as either formal or informal. They're just complaints.
And then they take three months even to *open* your complaint letter. That's why it's surreal.
Anyone see the programme on ITV last night about HMRC's mistakes? Impressive Geoffrey Boycott-style innings from Dave Hartnett.
Well, there are basically two types of complaint. You can either call them informal and formal, or you can call them something else. One type are little more than having a good moan, you want to tell them how bad they are, without really expecting anything specific done about it. These are the informal ones. Then there are the ones where you do want action taken, and you want a reply confirming that action has been taken. These are the formal ones. They often need to contain more detail than it is reasonable to convey by phone, given that the person at the other end is almost never the one who is actually able to interpret the detail. They just collect and forward, and will have to write stuff down and may get it wrong. If you write, on the other hand, then your piece of paper should (eventually) reach the person who's going to fix your problem.
That's hardly surreal even if true.
Your original "surreal" would have been true if the phone had been the only way to complain.
Ronald Raygun posted
I don't accept what you say. I never make the first type of complaint; all I ever want is something wrong to be put right. If the second type is what you call "formal", then I always make "formal" complaints.
And very often with other organisations I will try to pursue such a complaint by phone, and very often I have succeeded in doing so. The large majority of big corporations - banks, retailers, utilities - have customer call centres that deal exclusively with telephone complaints and try to correct matters where appropriate. My own sister works in one.
In fact, I have even had a complaint to HMRC handled by phone before, on an occasion when they billed me for another Mr Wade's tax, several years after I had paid my own tax bill for the tax year in question. That was not very long after they started putting the tax office's phone number on their correspondence. Before then, IIRC, they didn't; and they were not in the phone book either.
I agree that if the complaint is a complex one, or for some other reason can't be handled by phone, it is best done in writing. But that's a matter of complexity, not formality.
I watched Taking on the Taxman on Monday. There was a whistleblower who spoke out about the mess HMRC is in.
There's been plenty of apologists for HMRC but nobody has been able to explain a problem I have raised.
When an agent asks to become an agent for a taxpayer they can complete the taxpayers details online. This then generates a letter to the taxpayer with a code they should communicate to the agent. Why does it take more than THREE WEEKS for the taxpayer to receive this letter?
QuickBooks and Sage don't have anything like the problems that HMRC have.
From my experience accounting software suppliers generate many fewer complaints than HMRC even when the numbers of people involved are taken into account. It is clear that every sensible person accepts that HMRC are incompetent. The whistleblower on Monday night's TV program said that many HMRC staff are stressed by the unacceptable levels of service provided by HMRC.
"but I bet the products are still used by yourself and other accountants" - of course accountants use them. Our clients use them so we have to be able to read the data.
Do you specialise in making stupid statements?: "people expect the government departments to be perfect" and "you spend your time looking for faults". The reality is that people accept that government departments, like other businesses, will make mistakes. The difference is, managers in government departments have no experience of the detailed workings of the area that they are responsible for.
Frankly, I dont know as its not my area of the business. I do know that processing offices are understaffed so that would explain it.
As to that load of nonsense on ITV, what a load of biased crap. One case was six years ago, the others expect us to believe that they were unaware of what was happening until too late.
Mind you, it did show up that the boss has no personality and is never likely to win a popularity contest.
Staff are stressed but not because the unacceptable levels of service. They have had their work loads increased year on year, have to keep one eye over their shoulder to see where the next job cuts are coming, no pay increase and are constantly being told they are idiots by an accountant in Mitcham.
None of the statistics quoted were substantiated and the allegations of a former call centre worker, or so they alleged, were not backed up with any evidence. Anyone destroying mail would be given a free ticket to the job centre and any manager telling them would be keeping their company, so that is a load of b****cks too.
I do seem to remember a version of SAGE that could not handle directors NI and we had a list or errors embeded in these over the years.
It doesn't really explain why a letter that can be generated without human thought or even involvement should take three weeks.
It was amazing that they said they didn't know there was a problem until they had been made bankrupt. It's my experience that letters would have been sent for years before they resorted to bankruptcy proceedings.
Six months hassle and he thought it was reasonable to offer £25!
He kept making an excuse that the affairs were confidential. I'm sure that the taxpayers were not averse to HMRC giving a full explanation.
The whistleblower's comments seemed very reliable.
As a Collector for 14 years, I never had to pursue anyone to the point of issuing Bankruptcy Orders, that was always done at Head Office level. I was a Plaintiff for the department though so I would lose count of the attempts we would make to contact someone before we referred the case to that office.
The trouble with this is that you only get to see one side of the picture, if he thought it was unreasonable, why did he not take the case to the Ombudsman. £25 is aminor amount, another was for £50,000 and I know of a case where £150,000 was paid. As Mr Personality said, its the Public Purse and any compensation paid has to be proportional to the departments failure.
Nope, not an excuse, its every taxpayers absolute right to have their affairs dealt with confidentially and the department will NEVER discuss their affairs in a public forum.
Even if they had been given clearance, and we had provided the necessary information, they would be selective on what they showed, journalists never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Sorry but not to me they weren't, she was talking about things she would only have heresay knowledge. Contact centres don't get post, so how would she know its being destroyed unanswered.
ANYONE destroying post, opened or not would be fired instantly on charges of gross misconduct. To reinforce his since the program this message is on the front page of our Intranet.
The conditions in the Call centres are Dickensian and poor Miss Cratchet there probably got kicked out or left in disgust, so has a major axe to grind.
That's the usual way to deal with whistleblowers - try to discredit them.
Simon posted
Are you saying that the taxpayer does not have the right to waive that confidentiality if he wants the dispute discussed in public? I think the courts would disagree with you there.
Even when the taxpayer invites it. How very convenient for them.
This is the start of an article by a respected tax practitioner:
"HMRC: Compensating us for loss and delay? By Nichola Ross MartinWhat to do when HMRC keep getting things wrong? Accountingweb.co.uk's tax editor, Nichola Ross Martin proposes statutory compensation for taxpayers and agents when HMRC makes mistakes or loses data and documents. 'Such a scheme apparently will work for tax penalties...'
Since the merger of Customs with Revenue and without any doubt enhanced by staff cuts and chronically bad management HMRC has bloomed into a highly inefficient organization for administering the taxes acts. I doubt if there is an accountant across the land who has not run into problems with HMRC's helplines, the dreaded 64-8, VAT registrations or HMRC?s online services. It is immensely frustrating to find that you cannot complete the basic task for a client because something has gone wrong again, at HMRC?s end. I dread to think what the effect is on the tax collection side of the business.
Sorting out taxes is a pretty dire job for the British taxpayer, and especially those on lower incomes, think of all those pensioners on the wrong tax coding notices, think of all those tax credits claimants overpaid due to computer error. All in all, it's pretty lucky that there are charities around like Taxaid, Tax help for older people and of course organizations such as the Citizens Advice Bureau, there to mop up too. Oops, not for long, the government is about to axe that safeguard, that is sadly, another story...
When HMRC gets things wrong it costs us all money. Accountants regularly take it on the nose and there is a limit to how much you can reasonably charge a client when HMRC have lost the 64-8s again, keep logging you off with yet another error code, and then expect you to ring round, re-send, re-fax, re-apply."
Still some misguided individuals make out it is simply scaremongering.
This is by a contributor to a discussion on police heavy handedness:
"Nobody is perfect, and most people don't claim to be - for some reason when it's a person in a public service role, people cling on like sh*te to a blanket and others close around them to protect them. Weird."
Very apt.
Happy to discuss their tax problems before Ombudsman or New Tribunal, no where else. At least that way it will be before a body qualified to make a judgement and hav ethe power to enforce it, whether its in HMRC favour or not.
Even more convenient for the taxpayer. That way he doesnt have to admit that he has been ignoring 7 or 8 months worth of reminders, statements and threatneing letters before he acted on them.
Ytial by Press, yes thats fair init.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.