4. Mr C complains the payment HMRC made to him in July 2023 was too low. He says the £350 did not fully recognise the impact its earlier mistakes relating to the handling of his Self-Assessment Tax Return (SATR) and SEISS application had on him.
5. Mr C says he has been left frustrated and with a feeling that HMRC underestimated the impact of its mistakes.
6. Mr C would like HMRC to pay him more money.
7. Mr C usually completes a paper, rather than electronic, SATR when he needs to submit his information to HMRC. He usually has a face-to-face appointment with HMRC at his local jobcentre to complete his SATR.
8. Mr C had a meeting scheduled with HMRC in April 2020, so he could complete his 2018-19 SATR. He did not have a paper copy of the SATR because HMRC had not sent him one, so the HMRC officer he was due to meet would have given him one at the appointment.
9. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, HMRC had to cancel his appointment. It told Mr C it would contact him to reschedule the appointment or to advise what he could do to make sure his 2018-19 SATR was submitted.
10. HMRC did not contact Mr C.
11. In March 2021, HMRC told Mr C he was not eligible for SEISS grants one to three because he did not submit his 2018-19 SATR before the SEISS deadline of 23 April 2020.
12. After we spoke with Mr C and HMRC, it agreed to review his eligibility. HMRC did this review in May 2023 and awarded him with SEISS grants one to three (totalling £1,455) and £350 for his costs, its poor complaint handling and distress.
13. Mr C contacted us shortly after getting HMRC’s decision to raise concerns about the payment it made to him.
16. Mr C told us that because HMRC did not contact him in April 2020 to give him a paper 2018-19 SATR and help him complete it, he was denied access to SEISS grants one to three. He says this meant he was left without £1,455 in SEISS funds that he was entitled to, until HMRC reviewed and changed its decision in May 2023.
17. And, he says because he was only able to submit his 2018-19 SATR in October 2020, this meant there was a delay in him getting his tax rebate (totalling over £1,000).
18. Mr C told us being without the SEISS funds and his tax rebate meant he was unable to repair a broken boiler in his home for some time. He says he looked into borrowing from several banks but was unable to borrow any money.
19. He says he eventually had to ask a friend to lend him funds to fix his boiler which he says was over £2,000. He says this caused him embarrassment and it took a lot to ask his friend.
20. He says the delay in being able to fix his boiler meant he was unable to sell his home in 2020 as he had planned.
21. In May 2023, HMRC agreed to review Mr C’s eligibility for SEISS when we asked it to. This is because Mr C gave us details and medical information he had not given to HMRC before to consider. We gave this information to HMRC to use during its review.
22. This information did not refer to his boiler being broken or having to go to banks and a friend to borrow money to fix it. He also did not mention there was a delay in getting his tax rebate or that he had been unable to sell his home because the boiler had broken. He only made us aware of this information after HMRC reached its decision in May 2023.
23. HMRC was unaware of this information when it did its review in May 2023.
24. Mr C told us he recognised he had not mentioned this to HMRC either during the complaints process or as part of his evidence for the review, but he was confident he had mentioned the broken boiler in phone calls to HMRC’s helpline. He says HMRC should check this to prove he is telling the truth.
25. HMRC told us that when reaching its decision it considered the case and its published and internal guidance on financial payments.
26. We understand HMRC recognised it made a mistake by not contacting Mr C when it should have in April 2020. It also thought about:
• the impact Mr C said its mistake had on him • Mr C’s SATR filing history • the fact Mr C did not contact it between April and October 2020 to progress matters or make enquiries • the actions it took once Mr C contacted it to request his 2018-19 and 2019-20 SATRs in October 2020 • the extra details and medical information we got from Mr C and gave to it.
27. HMRC calculated how much to pay Mr C by giving:
• £300 for poor complaint handling and the worry and distress this caused • £50 to cover the costs of his phone calls and postage to HMRC, the Adjudicators Office (the AO is HMRC’s next stage in complaint handling) and us.
28. With this in mind, we think HMRC’s £350 payment is in line with its ‘Complaints and Remedy Guidance’ and its internal ‘Redress remedy scale’. The ‘Complaints and Remedy Guidance’ says if HMRC made a mistake or caused an unreasonable delay that has affected a customer, such as by causing them worry or distress, it may make a payment to acknowledge and apologise for this.
29. The £350 offered by HMRC is within the range of the highest it would offer as stated in its internal guidance. This says customers will be due a payment of the highest level where HMRC’s mistake had a greater impact on them over a significant period of time, or where the impact is significant but only lasted for a short time.
30. This is also in line with level two on our severity of injustice scale. We think financial payments in the range of £100 to £450 are suitable where the impact of a mistakes is a degree of distress, inconvenience or minor pain. We think a payment in this range is appropriate where the person affected was able recover quickly once the poor service ended.
31. It says HMRC should listen to what the customer tells it about the impact of its mistake and be aware that worry and distress can affect a person in different ways. It says HMRC should consider the person involved, look at the impact of its mistake as described by the customer and consider how long the problem went on for. It is expected that people affected by HMRC’s mistakes will make this known early on.
32. Our ‘Principles for Remedy’ say when organisations are deciding how much to offer for distress and inconvenience, they should consider the impact on the individual, the length of time taken to resolve the complaint and the trouble the individual was put to in making the complaint. They should also provide clear guidance about the criteria they use for deciding on payments.
33. They also say it may be appropriate to consider the costs a complainant faced when chasing the complaint and any inconvenience, distress, or both that were caused by poor complaint handling. They say it is reasonable to take into account any way the complainant may have contributed to or prolonged their own hardship.
34. With all the above in mind, we have seen no signs of failings in the way HMRC reached its decision to award Mr C £350. This is because it considered the information available to it at the time and it did this in line with its own guidance.
35. Our ‘Principles of Good Administration’ say organisations should follow their own policy and procedural guidance, which HMRC has done.
36. We are not taking any further action.
37. We thank Mr C for making us aware of his concerns and we hope we have reassured him that HMRC did not make any mistakes when reaching its decision. While we know Mr C did mention his boiler issues to HMRC by phone, he did not include it in his request for payment. This means HMRC was not able to consider it.
38. HMRC told us it will consider any more information Mr C has that shows its mistakes led to him needing to borrow money to repair his boiler, being unable to sell his home and the impact of his delayed tax rebate.
1. We have carefully considered Mr C’s complaint about HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). He says HMRC failed to fully recognise the impact its mistakes had on him and offered him a financial payment that was too low, when it reviewed his eligibility for the first three Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS) grants.
2. We recognise how this has been a difficult experience for Mr C and how strongly he feels about his complaint.
3. We have not seen any signs of mistakes by HMRC when it decided to pay him £350. We explain the reasons for our decision below.