Skip to main content

HMRC Tax Credits - the saga of the cover-up continues

One reason used for HMRC to ask people to pay their tax credits back is the so called "no receipt" of the annual return. What it means is that if the annual return gets lost in the post then people have to repay all the tax credits and there is no way of changing this.

I did win for one of my constituents mainly by threatening judicial review. However, I have been researching this and there clearly are a lot of similar cases.

I have asked two parliamentary questions and my office has asked an FOI question to find out how many people fall into this category.

The First PQ got a sort of "none" answer. So I rephrased it so they couldn't squirm out of answering it and got a "disproportionate cost" answer. This normally means the answer is embarrassing.

Under FOI we got the answer "this information is not available at this level" we have appealed asking for the information from another level and will over time go to the Information Commissioner.

This is an obvious cover up. I asked Harriet Harman about the issue and she said that it was an issue.

My guess is that it involves a lot of people and a lot of money and the government don't want to have to pay the money. If the issue is properly understood they wouldn't get away with this.

Comments

Susan said…
I am one of the Tax credit 'victims'. I am having to repay nearly £4000 because the Tax credit people have no record of my informing them of a change in income in 2003. I have not been in receipt of any credits for nearly 4 years now and have given up the fight. I am sure there are many more people out there like me.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…