12. When we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right.
13. Having done so we do not think we can say the events complained about caused the impact Mrs T has claimed. We also think HMRC has done enough to put right the impact of its actions.
14. Mrs T complains that HMRC failed to tell her that the HRP scheme under which she had received NI credits had been replaced by CPC which had different terms. CPC was available to new claimants as well as existing claimants of HRP.
15. After a period of uncertainty surrounding which organisation was responsible for communicating the change to HRP customers, HMRC acknowledged this lay with it. HMRC also acknowledged that it could ‘be almost certain’ that it did not notify Mrs T of the change which took place in 2010. This poor communication is not in line with our Principles of Good Administration which say public bodies should aim to ensure that customers are clear about their entitlements. We therefore find there was an indication of maladministration on HMRC’s part in this regard.
16. When we identify something has gone wrong, we look to see if this had an impact on the complainant and if the organisation has acted to put it right.
17. Mrs T says the poor communication means she will not be entitled to a full state pension when she reaches retirement age. She says she lost the opportunity to claim different benefits to obtain the credits she needed.
18. HMRC says, while it did not tell Mrs T about the change in 2010, it did in 2013. Between January and June, it wrote to her about her daughter’s full-time education intentions. This was because Mrs T’s daughter was due to leave school later that year and Child Benefit would only remain payable after that point if she intended to continue in full-time education.
19. Alongside its query, HMRC sent Mrs T its guidance ‘Payment Advice Notes’ which included information about the change.
20. Mrs T was asked to respond to HMRC’s enquiry. If she did not, she would stop receiving Child Benefit once her daughter left school. HMRC says that it continued to pay Child Benefit until 2015, when Mrs T’s daughter reached 18. While there are no records which prove Mrs T responded (owing to the lapse of time), as payments continued, it is reasonable to conclude that she must have asked for the payments to continue. We accept that Mrs T might not have noticed the information contained in the guidance, but it remains that HMRC provided her with this.
21. We therefore think it is reasonable to say that although HMRC did not alert Mrs T to the change in her receiving NI credits before they stopped in 2010, they did do this by June 2013 at the latest.
22. HRP was available up to the end of the tax year when the youngest child turns 16. As Mrs T’s daughter would have been 16 in August 2013, her entitlement to HRP would have ended in April 2013. She would only have been able to convert this to NI credits up to that same point.
23. CPC replaced HRP in 2010. It was available until the end of the tax year when the youngest child turned 12. In Mrs T’s case, her daughter would have been 12 in August 2009, so she would not have been able to claim CPC (and receive the corresponding NI credits) after April 2010.
24. Because Mrs T would only have received NI credits up until April 2014 regardless of whether the change took place, the period we are looking at is April 2010, when they stopped, to April 2014. This period is reduced further to end in June 2013 when, at the latest, HMRC gave her the relevant information.
25. We have thought about what Mrs T says she would likely have done if HMRC had told her about the change to CPC in 2010. She has explained that, had she known, she would have investigated claiming benefits for her ill health which may have given her the credits she needed.
26. While we think this is a reasonable suggestion, we are mindful that there is no guarantee she would qualify for any benefits. NI credits received via HRP or CPC are not the same as obtaining NI credits through benefits.
27. We have also seen no evidence Mrs T went on to apply for benefits for her ill health after HMRC told her about the change in NI contributions in June 2013. We recognise Mrs T says she was not aware of the change which may account for this. We have also not seen any evidence of her applying for benefits in April 2014, when she would have stopped receiving NI credits through HRP had this continued.
28. Mrs T explains that she moved overseas ‘in 2008/2009’ on a permanent basis. She says she has been in receipt of a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) from at some point before the end of January 2020 when the UK stopped being part of the European Union (EU). She explains that when she enquired about claiming Employment Support Allowance (ESA) in 2022 she was told she was not eligible for this.
29. Gov.UK explains that ESA cannot be claimed while permanently living abroad. This is the case both now and historically. If HMRC had told Mrs T about the change when it should have done, she would have been in the same situation she is in now. Mrs T would not have been able to claim benefits while living outside the UK. The only way Mrs T could achieve the full state pension entitlement after April 2010 would be to make voluntary payments for NI. This would remain the case regardless of when she found out she was no longer receiving them.
30. Mrs T also told us that if she had been told about the change she would have made voluntary NI contributions to allow her to receive a full state pension when she reaches that stage.
31. HMRC wrote to her in September 2023 to explain her options for doing this, bearing in mind the changes to the State Pension (SP) in 2016 which would have affected Mrs T regardless of this issue. It offered to allow her to make these payments at the relevant rate for that time. It repeated this offer in March 2024. HMRC says no payments have been received for any period. It says it would be willing to reinstate this offer, but for a period of 31 calendar days only. Should Mrs T wish to take HMRC up on this offer, she should contact it directly.
32. We cannot say for sure what Mrs T would have done if she had known about 2010 change from HRP to CPC before it took place. We are mindful that it is likely her only option if this had been communicated at that time, would be to make voluntary NI contributions. This is because she was not eligible (due to her being outside the UK) to claim benefits for ill health which would have provided those contributions for her.
33. We do not doubt HMRC’s error had some impact on Mrs T, and we acknowledge the worry and upset this caused. While this is the case, we do not think HMRC’s actions caused the extent of the impact Mrs T reports.
34. Our Principles for Remedy say that a remedy offered by a public body should seek to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. Where this is not possible the remedy offered should fairly reflect the harm the complainant has suffered.
35. As HMRC has offered to allow Mrs T to make voluntary contributions payments at the relevant rate, we are satisfied that HMRC has done enough to put its error right, in line with our Principles. Therefore, we will not take any further action.