Mr D complains HMRC blocked access to his PTA when it implemented a reasonable adjustment on his account to stop HMRC systems automatically sending letters to his address
21. Before we decide whether we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any signs something has gone wrong.
22. Mr D told us HMRC blocking access to his PTA hindered his ability to claim a tax refund. He says it also hindered his ability to claim a tax rebate on his working-from-home allowance.
23. Mr D explained to us he needed a reasonable adjustment as his condition prevented him from being able to access any correspondence sent by post, and despite repeated requests, HMRC continued to send letters to his home address.
24. As Mr D remained dissatisfied with the adjustments HMRC made, he raised a complaint. After Mr D’s complaint was escalated and remained unresolved, he contacted the Adjudicator’s Office (AO) on 17 November 2017, and it investigated as the next stage of the complaint process.
25. The AO issued its report on 22 May 2018 and did not uphold Mr D’s complaint, because it believed HMRC had made reasonable efforts to help Mr D to manage his tax affairs.
26. The AO report noted: ‘In order to stop any correspondence being sent to you, HMRC put a manual indicator on your tax account. Although this prevented postal correspondence being issued to you, it also prevented you from accessing your PTA. You asked HMRC to solve this problem. HMRC have advised you that they are unable to satisfy your request because HMRC system limitations mean that it is not possible to have both functions in operation’.
27. In its complaint response issued to Mr D on 21 November 2018, HMRC told him: ‘Whilst we are working hard to make improvements, we are at the moment unable to extend the digital message to all HMRC’s outgoing post. We are working with the business to increase the types of messages being sent digitally’.
28. HMRC attempted to explain to Mr D that its systems at that time meant it could not stop all postal correspondence without affecting other areas of his accounts. HMRC told Mr D that, due to the limitations of its systems, if it placed a marker on his account for no postal correspondence, he would be unable to access his online tax account. During a telephone call on 21 November 2018, HMRC attempted to engage with Mr D to try to resolve his complaint.
29. In the notes referring to the telephone conversation, HMRC recorded: ‘We discussed the signal set on the records, and I explained that at the moment we are unable to set the digital signal on everything which is why he is unable to view his personal taxation records. We talked about the fact that it will be helpful for him to be part of the user research session. He would be able to discuss his problems with our system and the effect it is having on him. I said that I wasn’t sure if he would have the time and also how much commitment would be needed but it would be something he will be part of to get the right system in place for his and other’s needs’.
30. As HMRC had realised its current systems could not offer Mr D the resolution he wanted, it then asked Mr D if he would like to engage with HMRC to help it improve its systems, and whether anything else could be done to improve the service he received.
31. At this stage, HMRC also offered Mr D additional help through its needs enhanced support team (NES). This entails an NES officer checking his records every month to establish whether any postal correspondence has been issued and providing extra assistance by telephoning or visiting to explain the contents of the correspondence.
32. NES then also gave Mr D suggestions for how he could better access its service, considering the restrictions currently placed on his access. These suggestions included asking a friend, colleague or family member to assist him with any letters HMRC might send him or considering employing an accountant to represent him.
33. Mr D said he did not wish to have any family or friends help him. He also said he did not wish to employ an accountant unless HMRC would pay for it, which it would not.
34. Mr D then continued to have restricted access to his account due to the MCI. During this time, Mr D continued to have issues and made several complaints to HMRC about his access to his account and the measures HMRC were taking to resolve the situation.
35. The evidence available to us shows HMRC continued to constantly assess what other options could be available. During this time, it also made improvements to its systems, so it can now offer different solutions to Mr D and other customers with enhanced needs.
36. As a result of this ongoing work and systems improvements, HMRC was recently able to offer Mr D a different solution. HMRC referred Mr D to its visually impaired media unit to send emails to Mr D. This would then allow the MCI to be removed, and all letters intended for Mr D would go via the unit and be screened out. This would also allow Mr D access to his online tax account.
37. HMRC has confirmed to us that Mr D has agreed to this arrangement.
38. HMRC has now completed this process and has resolved the issues Mr D had in accessing his online tax account. Mr D confirmed to us that HMRC has now given him full access, but he remains unhappy this was not taken forward sooner.
39. We have carefully considered Mr D’s complaint. We understand Mr D became frustrated as he had asked for a reasonable adjustment and HMRC had not been able to fully implement this for him in the way he wanted. Mr D told us this had been going on for some time and, despite several complaints, it had never been resolved.
40. The complaint to us relates to HMRC applying a reasonable adjustment in such a way that would still allow Mr D to fully access its services. As Mr D has Asperger’s, he requested no communication by post, and HMRC accepted this.
41. In its reply to his first complaint in November 2016, HMRC confirmed the limitations of its systems and, to enable Mr D to access its services, made several suggestions, including:
• offering extra support from the HMRC NES team • asking whether a friend, colleague or family member could assist him • asking him to consider employing an accountant to represent him • advising him of the current services available, including web chat.
42. Following further correspondence, HMRC made further efforts to improve its services and asked Mr D to engage with it to help improve its services and understand how the current services had affected him. During that time, HMRC gave Mr D the option of removing the MCI, but he refused this as he knew it would mean receiving correspondence by post.
43. We have referred to the HMRC charter to see what should have happened in Mr D’s case and whether HMRC took appropriate action to try to resolve his complaint.
44. The HMRC charter says HMRC will: ‘Be aware of your personal situation. Will listen to your worries and answer any questions clearly and concisely. Will be mindful of your wider personal situation and will give extra support if you need it’.
45. We have also referred to HMRC’s ‘Principles of support for customers who need extra help’, which explain ‘HMRC is working with third-party software providers to support the development of accessible software, setting conditions for engagement through our digital platform, which include compliance with the Equality Act 2010’. Those same principles explain ‘If you need extra support, you can get a phone or video appointment with the extra support team’.
46. By trying to resolve the issues Mr D was experiencing and involving him in trying to improve its systems to solve his problems, we can see HMRC acted in line with its charter. HMRC was clearly aware of his personal situation and the evidence shows it consistently answered his questions, even though it was not always able to give Mr D the answers he wanted.
47. No public organisation has a system which starts off as perfect, and this is not the standard to which we hold organisations. HMRC’s charter and its principles show HMRC should work to continuously improve its systems and to make sure customers can access the services they need via workarounds or other non-standard methods.
48. In Mr D’s case, we can see HMRC has been working continuously to improve its systems, resulting in a significant improvement from which Mr D and other members of the public will now benefit. In terms of providing an appropriate and effective workaround in the interim, we can see from the evidence available to us HMRC engaged with Mr D throughout this period to try to help him to access the services he needed, including providing access to its NES team, offering to visit him at home and suggesting other sources of support.
49. While we understand Mr D did not want to ask for support from friends, family members or professional service providers, in our view this was not an unreasonable suggestion for HMRC to make in the circumstances. We note HMRC also made some further attempts to contact Mr D to try to resolve the matter, but it was not always able to reach him.
50. Given the above, we have not seen any sign of HMRC maladministration (fault) in the way it handled Mr D’s access to the online system and provided alternatives for using its service.
51. HMRC did still send Mr D some auto-generated letters, and this caused him to worry as to what information they contained as, if he could not read them, he may miss some important information.
52. We have thought carefully about whether this is a sign of maladministration. Given HMRC recognised these errors immediately and apologised, and as there was no longer-term effect, we do not consider these errors to be so seriously outside of the HMRC commitments in its charter as to be a sign of maladministration.
53. We also considered the HMRC ‘Complaints and Remedy Guidance’ to establish whether HMRC acted within its own guidelines when it offered Mr D £250 to acknowledge the worry and distress it had caused him.
54. HMRC ‘Complaints and Remedy Guidance’ says, ‘The payments we make under our complaints policy are ex gratia. In other words, we are under no legal obligation to make them, and they are not intended in any way to equate to damages awarded by the courts. It follows that we make such payments voluntarily, and we are entitled to frame rules to govern them. In doing so, we look to comply with the Ombudsman’s Principles for Remedy, while mindful of the constraints imposed by the fact that payments are funded from the public purse’.
55. It also says: ‘The payments we make are solely to acknowledge the distress and worry caused by our mistakes. This is fundamentally different from how, for example, a court might approach a damages claim, or how an insurance company might adopt a tariff approach to loss claims. You should nevertheless attempt to assess the impact that our mistakes have had on the individual, in order to inform the broad level of payment’.
56. Following the guidance, HMRC offered £250 and made it clear this was for the worry and distress caused to Mr D.
57. As HMRC says it considers remedy in line with our ‘Principles for Remedy’. We have also referred to these principles to see whether we believe HMRC has taken appropriate action. Our principles say, ‘The public body should consider how the circumstances of the case have affected the complainant in all ways. Even if an offer of remedy is not legally required, the public body should consider whether it has acted fairly and how its decisions have affected the complainant’.
58. By offering financial redress, HMRC has acknowledged parts of this process caused Mr D distress. In our view, it has taken a fair, reasonable and proportionate approach to remedy.
59. We have also consulted the ‘UK Central Government Complaint Standards’. These standards set out how organisations that provide government services should approach complaint handling.
60. In considering whether HMRC has been thorough and fair, we can see that, in line with these standards, it ‘Actively listened and demonstrated a clear understanding of what the key issues are for the service user’. From all the evidence available to us, it is clear HMRC was aware of all the issues Mr D had, and it understood they were causing him frustration and distress. It also tried to resolve his issues within the limitations of its systems.
61. The standards also say, ‘Colleagues make sure key parties involved in a complaint have the opportunity to give their views and respond to emerging information where appropriate. Colleagues act openly and transparently and with empathy when discussing this information, making sure they take everyone’s comments into account’.
62. Taking into consideration all the complaint responses HMRC has issued to Mr D relating to his complaints, it has also followed the standards relating to ‘Giving fair and accountable responses’. The standards say, ‘Organisations make sure service users are kept involved and updated on how they are taking forward all learning or improvements relevant to their complaint’.
63. By asking Mr D to engage and including him in any system improvements, HMRC demonstrated it has responded to his views where it can, and it has been open and honest about the limitations it was working within. It has used his complaint to improve its services, and this is in line with the complaint standards.
64. During this time, HMRC has also continued to engage and try to find different solutions to help Mr D. Although it took a long time to find an alternative solution, HMRC eventually achieved this and as such there will be no further ongoing effect on Mr D.
65. Keeping in mind the standards listed above, and considering all the evidence available to us, we can see HMRC followed the relevant standards and guidelines when it dealt with Mr D’s concerns and subsequent complaint. We have seen no signs of maladministration in this case, so we will take no further action.