HM Revenue and Customs

3. Mrs B complains about HMRC on behalf of herself and her husband. Mrs B complains that when Mr B informed HMRC that he believed his ex-partner had made a joint application for tax credits fraudulently for tax years 2003-04 and 2008-09 it did not properly investigate his allegation of fraud. Mrs B also complaints that when Mr B provided evidence to support his allegation of fraud, HMRC did not properly consider the evidence he provided, including a signature on the claim form which did not match his own.

4. Mrs B tells us that Mr B has had poor health, including ongoing treatment for cancer, and this has been made worse by the ongoing situation in relation to the debt hanging over them. Mrs B tells us this situation has put a huge strain on their marriage as she has been working to support both of them with Mr B now being unable to work due to ill health. She also told us Mr B suffers from depression and he has required medication and counselling.

5. Mrs B would like HMRC to reconsider its decision they are liable for the debt they have and would like it to be transferred solely to his ex-partner, or for HMRC to write it off. She would also like service improvements at HMRC so issues like this do not go on for years without resolving them.

6. HMRC records show that Mr B had an overpayment of tax credits in relation to a joint claim with his ex-partner for tax years 2003-04 and 2008-09. Mr B’s ex-partner informed HMRC on 25 November 2008 that they were no longer a couple and had separated on 30 April 2008. Mr B then received a letter from HMRC on 7 September 2015 telling him he owed £2,596.80 as half of the outstanding tax credits overpayment that he was still liable for.

7. Mr B replied to HMRC on 25 September 2015 and disputed the payments. He advised HMRC that he had no knowledge of any joint claim and that he believed that his ex-partner had made the joint claims fraudulently. He said that as he had never signed any documents, any signatures provided on the claim must have been fraudulent.

8. HMRC then asked Mr B to provide it with written evidence of him not having made the claim and having no knowledge of it. Mr B continued to correspond with HMRC and disputed he should be liable for the debt.

9. On 6 September 2016 HMRC’s Disputed Household team wrote to Mr B and told him that in order to establish whether he should not be liable for the debt he should provide something that proves he was not aware of the tax credits payments and that he was also not aware of the tax credit award notices which had been sent to his home address.

10. Mr B explained that he worked away for long periods as a long-distance lorry driver and frequently did not have access to the post sent to him and his ex-partner. He also provided housing and court documentation as part of his evidence. The documents Mr B sent to support his dispute were signed for as received on 18 October 2016. However, it appears that initially HMRC lost this evidence and had to raise a missing document referral. HMRC records show that the missing mail was located on 6 December 2016 and forwarded to the Disputed Household team.

11. On 7 December 2016 HMRC issued Mr B a letter telling him it had considered the written evidence he supplied but decided it was not sufficient for HMRC to change his liability. It informed Mr B this meant he was still responsible for paying back half of the overpayment. This was the final correspondence HMRC sent Mr B at that time.

12. For a long period of time there was no further correspondence in relation to the debt, until late 2021 when HMRC again contacted Mr B about the debt telling him he remained liable for it. As a result, on 15 October 2021 Mr B made a formal complaint to HMRC via the advocacy service Citizens Advice.

13. In the complaint Mr B set out again that he had never seen any paperwork in relation to a joint tax credit claim and had no knowledge of it. Mr B told HMRC he had received its letter of 7 December 2016 which said that it had considered the written evidence, but that the letter did not refer to anything he had sent to support his dispute.

15. The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 says a person needs to make a complaint about the service they have received from a government department or agency to an MP within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints brought to an MP after more than one year, unless we can see there is a good reason to do so.

16. We can see that Mr B was aware in December 2016 when he received HMRC’s final decision on the liability for repayment of tax credits that he was unhappy with its consideration, and with its lack of reference to the evidence he had provided. He did not contact an MP until September 2023, and we have discussed this with Mrs B to understand the reasons for the period of approximately seven years between these two events. We have taken into account that Mr and Mrs B were completing the complaints process between 2021 and 2023.

17. HMRC provided its decision and advised it had considered his evidence in its letter dated 7 December 2016. In that letter HMRC told Mr B: ‘We’ve considered the written evidence you’ve supplied but decided it’s not sufficient for us to change your liability. This means you’re still responsible for paying back half of the overpayment’.

18. If Mr B was not satisfied that HMRC had properly considered the evidence he sent, or that it had not taken any action when he said any signatures on the documents must be fraudulent, it would have been open to Mr B to complain at that time. We have explored with Mrs B if there was any barrier to Mr B doing so.

19. Mrs B has told us that they did reply to that letter to reiterate they disagreed with the decision, but does not now have a copy of that reply. She also told us that, following this, they did not hear anything further from HMRC until 2021, at which point HMRC indicated it would pursue repayment. When we asked about the reason for such a long delay, as they did not make any complaint until 2021, she told us that they had been waiting to hear anything back from HMRC.

20. We understand that Mr B had written back to HMRC in December 2016 but did not make any complaint at the time, which would have been the next step in pursuing the matter. We have not had sight of the letter he sent, so we cannot give any view as to whether he had asked anything or provided any information which meant HMRC should then have responded to him. However, whatever the contents of the letter, we can see it would have been reasonable to follow up with HMRC after a few weeks had passed and no further reply was forthcoming, particularly as HMRC had been clear that its position was that the debt remained repayable.

21. We understand Mr B made no further contact for nearly five years, and we have not seen any barrier to him doing so. We understand Mr B’s health has not been good in recent years and these issues have added extra strain to both his physical and mental health. We have not seen that this would have prevented him from making a complaint sooner than 2021, with the assistance of Mrs B and Citizens Advice if necessary.

22. With this in mind, we have seen no reasons for delay that would allow us to put our time limit to one side. Therefore, we will take no further action.

23. We understand this will be a disappointing decision for both Mr and Mrs B, particularly as this comes at a difficult time where Mr B is experiencing poor health. We wish Mr B all the best in his recovery and hope our explanations as to how we reached our decision clearly set out why we are unable to take their complaint further.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs B’s complaint about HMRC. We understand Mrs B brought her complaint to us as she remains concerned that HMRC did not properly consider all the relevant evidence when it decided that her husband, Mr B, remained liable for an overpayment of tax credits for the 2003-04 and 2009-09 tax years. We understand Mrs B remains dissatisfied with HMRC’s responses to concerns of possible fraud, and that these events continue to cause her, and her husband worry and distress.

2. After considering the information provided, we can see the complaint falls outside of our one-year time limit and we are not able to put the limit aside in this case. We explain further below.