HM Revenue and Customs

3. Mrs O complains about HMRC’s decision in August 2022 not to retrospectively award her grants under the SEISS, after it considered her medical evidence. She says:

• HMRC did not use its discretion or consider her personal circumstances when it made its decision regarding her eligibility.

4. Mrs O says HMRC’s decision had a negative financial impact on her, her business and her young family because it left them in a difficult financial position. She also says HMRC’s decision added significant distress to her family, at a time when she experienced a very difficult pregnancy.

5. Mrs O would like HMRC to reconsider its decision and as a minimum, award her the third SEISS grant.

6. Mrs O experienced various health and pregnancy difficulties which meant she did not submit her Self-Assessment Tax Returns (SATRs) for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 tax years. To be eligible for the first SEISS grant (which was announced in March 2020), taxpayers needed to have submitted their 2018-19 SATR by 23 April 2020.

7. In October 2020, Mrs O submitted her 2017-18 and 2018-19 SATRs and told HMRC her reasons why they were late. She asked HMRC to consider her application for SEISS funding.

8. In December 2020, HMRC said it had considered Mrs O’s personal circumstances and, because of these, it would waive her late filing penalties (LFPs). But, HMRC said it could not accept her reasons for the late submission for the purposes of awarding her the SEISS grants, and it rejected her claim.

9. After this, Mrs O complained to HMRC, via her MP, and went through the complaints process.

10. In July 2022, Mrs O gave HMRC medical evidence she had not previously sent it, and asked it to reconsider her claim for SEISS.

11. On 12 August 2022, HMRC wrote to Mrs O and said, after considering her circumstances again along with her medical evidence, its decision stayed the same and she was not eligible for SEISS funding.

12. On 23 August 2022, Mrs O contacted the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (our organisation).

15. We understand from HMRC’s ‘Discretionary SEISS Claim Governance Board Submission Form’, the criteria for HMRC to review using its discretion.

16. This guidance tells us there were only four criteria that would cause HMRC to refer a case to its discretionary board. The first three criteria do not apply because Mrs O did not say a HMRC process, or its ‘online eligibility tool’, made her ineligible, or she lived in an isolated area where she could not find out about SEISS or the deadlines to apply for it.

17. Mrs O claims her personal circumstances had prevented her from submitting her SATR in the 2018-19 tax year which then meant she failed to qualify for SEISS during the COVID-19 pandemic. This meant to qualify she would need to meet the fourth point from HMRC’s guidance.

18. For HMRC to consider applying discretion under the fourth point of this guidance it must first check the claimant (person applying for the grant) made attempts to meet the deadlines despite any vulnerability.

19. Mrs O’s case was referred to its discretionary board in December 2020, but her claim was rejected because it decided Mrs O had not made attempts to submit her SATRs on time.

20. In July 2022, Mrs O provided HMRC with medical evidence as she believed her circumstances had stopped her from submitting her SATRs on time, and the medical evidence showed this.

21. Mrs O’s medical evidence included:

• In vitro fertilisation (IVF) laboratory records from April 2015, August 2015 and November 2015 • an IVF medication protocol chart • GP records, including consultation notes from between February 2000 and September 2020 • a timeline made by Mrs O showing the health complications she experienced over recent years.

22. We can see HMRC considered Mrs O’s medical evidence in July and August 2022, but it decided it did not change its decision. HMRC decided the medical evidence did not give a strong enough argument Mrs O met the fourth point in its guidance, specifically, that she made attempts to submit her SATRs on time.

23. When HMRC considered Mrs O’s circumstances, it needed to see evidence she had made attempts to meet the deadline, despite vulnerability, meaning she could not file her SATRs on time.

24. An example of this would be if she had contacted HMRC at the time she first experienced difficulty, to make it aware of her situation and tell it how it was preventing her from submitting her SATRs.

25. Mrs O did not contact HMRC until November 2020.

26. HMRC told us when it reviewed Mrs O’s medical evidence it could not find anything that would support a case for allowing discretion. It told us its position is unchanged as Mrs O did not meet its discretionary criteria.

27. HMRC told us it recognises Mrs O had health vulnerabilities, but it could not see they left her unable to comply with the requirement to file her SATRs before the relevant SEISS deadlines. HMRC said its view is that if a customer can pursue their business and continue to trade it expects the customer to meet their tax obligations, whether personally or through a third party. It told us it must be consistent with its application of its discretion to remain fair to all customers.

28. Our principles say public organisations, ‘should follow their own policy and procedural guidance, whether published or internal’ and in their decision making they ‘should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones and balance the evidence appropriately’. They also say, ‘people should be treated fairly and consistently, so that those in similar circumstances are dealt with in a similar way’.

29. With all the above in mind it appears HMRC acted in line with its discretionary policy and our principles when it reviewed Mrs O’s medical evidence and reviewed its decision on whether she was eligible for SEISS.

30. We have seen no signs of fault by HMRC, and for the reasons explained, we are not investigating this complaint further.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs O’s complaint about HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Mrs O is concerned that in August 2022 HMRC did not retrospectively award her grants under the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS), after it considered her medical evidence. We understand how difficult it has been for Mrs O in recent years with her health. We also recognise how difficult it was for Mrs O, her business, and her family to get no financial help from SEISS during the coronavirus (COVID-19). We appreciate the impact this has had on her.

2. When considering the evidence available to us, we have not seen any signs HMRC made mistakes when it considered Mrs O’s medical evidence and whether this changed its original decision about her eligibility for SEISS. We explain the reasons for our decision below.