The advice HMRC gave
16. Ms A contacted HMRC to discuss her options to increase the number of qualifying years for her state pension by making class 3 contributions. She had been trying to find out if she could buy more class 3 contributions to increase the number of qualifying years but had not been able to find this out from her contact with the DWP.
17. We listened to the recordings of Ms A’s conversations with HMRC. We found that in each call, where she asked if she had the option to make more class 3 contributions, HMRC advised her that she would need to contact DWP to find out whether this would increase her pension.
18. Ms A told us she feels HMRC should have told her she would not be able to make class 3 contributions because it was more than six years since she retired, rather than referring her on to the DWP. The call notes show she was already aware of the six-year time limit, and of government publications saying there could be exceptions to the six-year time limit. HMRC’s view was that it is not the responsibility of its National Insurance helpline staff to explain the rules for a scheme which is operated by the DWP. Its staff guidance says queries such as Ms A’s should be referred on to the DWP, and we think this is reasonable because Ms A was looking for a decision on her pension options. HMRC would not make that decision, and from HMRC’s point of view, Ms A was entitled to make contributions but needed to check if this would increase her state pension first. This was advice only the DWP could give her.
19. The call recordings show she was already aware of the six-year time limit, which is explained in the information leaflets she had, and this was acknowledged by HMRC staff in their calls. Ms A was looking to find if there were exceptions which would allow her to pay, despite it being more than six years since she retired. We think it was appropriate to refer this query to the DWP. HMRC could not give her a decision on whether she could increase her pension by making class 3 contributions, and it was the DWP’s role to do this.
20. While we appreciate HMRC and the DWP’s different responsibilities, in relation to National Insurance, would not have been clear to Ms A at the time, we think HMRC are correct in saying the DWP needed to answer the questions she had about making additional class 3 contributions because they related to the potential impact on her pension.
21. Ms A highlighted one particular call she made on 22 March, which influenced her decision to try and make more class 3 contributions rather than using the class 3a scheme. In this call, HMRC went into some detail about her National Insurance record and explained there were years where there would be the option to complete her class 3 contributions if the DWP said she was allowed to.
22. The key information HMRC gave Ms A in this call seems to be the explanation that there was a year that would be completed with a contribution of £183.30. Ms A explained that being told this contribution would increase her weekly pension by £4 meant that, if she were allowed to make this contribution, it would be a much more cost-effective investment than making class 3a contributions.
23. The call recordings reflect that HMRC gave this explanation at the same time as it explained she would need to speak to the DWP to confirm she was able to pursue this option. HMRC was consistent in giving this advice throughout their discussions with Ms A. The call discussed in paragraph 22 above concluded with HMRC saying ‘anything to do with your pension and enhancing it, or giving you the correct information, is Pensions themselves which is on the number that I’ve given you [for the DWP State Pension Enquiries]’.
24. It is unfortunate if Ms A was not able to get the information she needed from her discussions with the DWP, and we understand she was clearly feeling frustrated at that time. However, we cannot see that HMRC gave incorrect or inappropriate explanations in response to Ms A’s queries, and do not think it made a mistake here. HMRC did tell her there were gaps in her NI record, and it is its responsibility to maintain NI records. It also told her it could not say if she would be able to buy more pension by completing the years in question and she must speak to the DWP about this.
25. When we asked HMRC about the legislation for making class 3 contributions, it told us it now recognised it should have considered Ms A’s dispute about whether she was allowed to make class 3 contributions under its formal dispute resolution process, as well as looking at her complaint about poor service. It told us it can sometimes allow people to make additional class 3 contributions outside the six-year time limit, in line with Regulation 50 of The Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 2001. It said it had discussed this with the DWP and they agreed Ms A could make additional contributions under that regulation, and these should count towards her state pension, but that DWP had advised this would not increase her state pension, for the following reasons:
· ‘Her State Pension has been increased to 83% of the full rate using her former spouse’s National Insurance contributions · 67% of Ms A’s State Pension is based on her own 26 qualifying years of National Insurance contributions. Paying another six years of AVCs would only increase to 32 qualifying years, which would also entitle her to 83% of the full rate.’
26. HMRC said it recognised that looking at the detail of Ms A’s situation, and giving this explanation sooner, might have helped Ms A resolve her complaint, saving her the frustration and uncertainty involved with pursuing her complaint. It told us it plans to pay a financial remedy of £300 to remedy this. HMRC’s complaint handling is not in the scope of this investigation, which we agreed with Ms A before beginning our work, so we will not give a formal view on the appropriateness of this offer. The complaint we have investigated is whether HMRC provided incorrect or incomplete advice during its telephone calls with Ms A, and we have not seen evidence of such mistakes. However, we do welcome its decision to acknowledge it could have done better once a complaint was made and attempts to remedy what it sees as avoidable distress caused by its handling of the complaint.
27. We appreciate the information HMRC gave Ms A was part of what she needed to weigh up in deciding what the best option was for her. Looking at what HMRC said, it seems Ms A would have been clear that buying class 3 contributions would be the much cheaper option, but it gave no assurance that this could be an option for her. It was her choice whether she wanted to access the class 3a scheme, with the knowledge that scheme was about to close, and that she may not be allowed to buy more state pension by any other route. The call recordings show HMRC made clear it could not confirm she was able to increase her pension via this scheme, and she would need the DWP to confirm this before making any decisions.
28. This is in line with Our Principles of Good Administration, which say ‘Public bodies should communicate effectively, using clear language that people can understand and that is appropriate to them and their circumstances. Public bodies should treat people with sensitivity, bearing in mind their individual needs, and respond flexibly to the circumstances of the case. Where appropriate, they should deal with customers in a co-ordinated way with other providers to ensure their needs are met; and, if they are unable to help, refer them to any other sources of help.’
Issue 2 – pension statements
29. Ms A retired and began receiving her state pension in April 2008. She received updates on her NI record in the years before her retirement.
30. HMRC’s National Insurance Manual refers to these annual updates as deficiency notices. These are sent to people who have had less than 30 complete years of National Insurance counting towards their state pension, to advise them of any years that did not qualify and make them aware they had the option to complete those years. These letters were sent to Ms A by HMRC.
31. Those notifications said ‘A pension forecast will indicate whether paying the shortfall in your National Insurance contributions will increase your basic State Pension. If you want to request a forecast go to The Pension Service website.’ The Pension Service is part of DWP. Ms A told us she did request a pension statement in 2007 and, based on that statement, believed she had done all she could to increase her state pension.
32. She felt HMRC should also have done more to publicise the changes in The Pension Act 2008, which meant she could make class 3 contributions going back to 1975-76. She shared information she had found which was published by the DWP and explained those changes.
33. HMRC said it did not have a responsibility to notify individuals of this change to the legislation. It said the government publishes the budget each year to inform people of changes that are relevant to them. In 2008, it began including a leaflet, produced by the DWP, when responding to requests for information about NI, but would only share information in response to those requests.
34. Bearing in mind HMRC does not award or manage pensions, and we have not seen any evidence in the legislation, detailing HMRC’s role and responsibilities, that it was asked to or had a responsibility to publicise this, so we think this explanation is reasonable. The DWP did publish information about the changes and, while we appreciate Ms A may not have seen that at the time, this does not mean HMRC needed to do something differently in its role. HMRC maintains records of peoples’ National Insurance contributions but HMRC itself does not have involvement, oversight, or accountability for state pensions.
Issue 3 – the Adjudicator’s Office
35. Ms A also complains that the AO did not consider all the relevant evidence when it looked at her complaint. She said she is frustrated by its handling of the matter and believes the AO missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint.
36. When the AO investigated the complaint, it looked at the letters Ms A sent, at HMRC’s comments on the complaint, and by listening to the recordings of Ms A’s calls with HMRC. The AO included a brief summary of the call recordings it thought were most relevant in its report. It looked at her complaint that she had been misadvised by HMRC and decided she had been given appropriate advice by HMRC.
37. Ms A felt that was not an accurate reflection of what the call recordings showed. We have now listened to those recordings and made full transcripts which we can share with all parties to the complaint. Having considered the recordings ourselves, we think the AO’s explanations appropriately and accurately reflect the evidence relevant to making a decision on Ms A’s complaint, in line with the requirements for ‘getting it right’ in Our Principles of Good Administration.
38. We note that in her complaint Ms A highlighted that HMRC had now written to her to say class 3 contributions could only be made within six years of a person reaching state pension age and asked why it had not told her this when she called in March 2017. The call recordings reflect that this was discussed, and Ms A’s query to HMRC regarding any exceptions to the six-year rule. It was reasonable for HMRC to refer this to the DWP, for the reasons set out above. We have seen no indications of mistakes in the way the AO investigated Ms A’s complaint.
39. For the reasons set out in this report, we do not uphold the complaint.