Corporate report

The Adjudicator's Office annual report 2023

Published 22 June 2023

The role of the Adjudicator

The role of the Adjudicator was created in 1993 to introduce an independent tier of complaint handling for HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) (collectively ‘the departments’). Since December 2019 we have held an independent role in reviewing decisions made under the Home Office’s Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS).

The Adjudicator’s Office (AO) provides a free, impartial, and independent service and investigates all complaints within their remit. We resolve individual complaints but also highlight trends in both customer service and complaint handling. The Adjudicator will continue to push the departments to improve quality in complaint handling, so that customers will only feel the need to escalate more sensitive and complex complaints to the Adjudicator’s Office.

The Adjudicator expects HMRC, the VOA and Home Office to apply skill and understanding to their complaint handling. They should explain their decisions clearly and with reference, where appropriate, to relevant rules, guidance or legislation. Our GOV.UK pages set out the issues that the Adjudicator can look at, and the boundaries to our scope of enquiry for HMRC, the VOA, and the Home Office Windrush Compensation Scheme.

Our Service Level Agreements underpin the role of our office in providing an impartial, proportionate consideration of complaints, without interference.

There are no targets for the number of cases upheld and we make all final decisions on cases with the approval or under the delegated authority of the Adjudicator.

During 2022 to 2023, the Adjudicator was supported by staff in two locations. Most of our staff are specialist investigators, supported by specific leads for people matters, quality assurance, learning and development, stakeholder engagement and business planning.

Our Role and Vision

Our Role

The Adjudicator’s Office:

• resolves complaints that come to us by providing an accessible and flexible service and making fair and impartial decisions

• supports and encourages effective resolution throughout the complaint handling process

• uses insight and expertise to support the government departments to learn from complaints and improve services to customers

Our Vision

By working with the departments and using our independent insight and expertise, we will achieve these positive outcomes for our customers:

• complaint handling is trusted as fair

• responsive to customer needs

• insight from complaints improves services for customers

The Adjudicator’s foreword - Helen Megarry

Helen Megarry

This is the Annual Report for my seventh and final year as Adjudicator.

During the reporting year we received 950 complaints about HMRC for investigation. This compared to 1029 last year. The upheld rate (including fully and partially) increased to 47%, an increase of 15%.

HMRC’s complaints performance has still not fully recovered from post pandemic disruption. Although recovered in areas there are still significant backlogs in others where high-volume complaints are not expected to recover until well into next year. We continue to receive high numbers of complaints from customers who have not managed to complete HMRC’s internal complaint process. Increasing numbers of customers, often vulnerable, are stuck in the system for long periods with little or no meaningful response from HMRC. Although we understand the context of operational resource pressure because this is an issue that we have given feedback on before, we undertook further research into those cases. We have fed back to HMRC our insight into the issues that contribute to this ongoing poor complaint handling.

We received 57 complaints about the VOA, which was an increase from 40 in the previous year. We only upheld 4 of those complaints. The VOA have carried out a transformation of their approach to complaints in line with their wider strategic objectives for customers. We continue to work with them to realise the improvements to customers that their new approach should bring.

We received 78 requests for reviews of decisions made by the Home Office under the Windrush Compensation Scheme. Of the 110 investigations that we completed in the year we referred 7 back to the Home Office for reconsideration. A leadership change in operation of the Scheme within the Home Office has bought increased openness and dialogue. However, there are still significant delays in the process, leaving claimants waiting too long for a final decision.

The end of my 7-year tenure leads me to reflect on the progress that HMRC has made towards a better standard of complaint handling. Looking back over past reports, I recognise HMRC have acted on most of my substantive recommendations to improve their governance of complaints. This reflects a commitment to value complaints and the potential to learn from them. Over the past 3 to 4 years, progress has been steady and is re-enforced by explicit links between the 10-year tax administration strategy and the overall importance of improving services for customers. This includes providing explicit senior sponsorship and accountability for complaints in HMRC, adopting common complaint handling standards to apply across HMRC’s activities, adopting a complaint strategy to embrace transformational learning and putting in place structures to enable cross-departmental action on complaint learning.

The Department endorsed our proposal to use insight from complaints to hold them to account on their progress in embedding their Charter. We see the potential of the Charter to drive radical change within the department. We believe that successful delivery is dependent on three key levers: culture, leadership and strategy. Insight taken from an independent perspective allows for feedback on these levers and can be harnessed to influence and support cultural change and identify systemic issues that drive customer dissatisfaction or inefficiency. HMRC can also use complaint insight as a catalyst for inquiry, working collaboratively to identify potential barriers to change.

Despite this progress we still see inconsistency in the way that different parts of the department approach complaints, and the Charter itself. If anything, we are beginning to see more divergence in both practice and engagement as some areas progress and others less so. We refer later to our premature complaints report which highlights routine failings in complaint handling with significant impact on customers.

HMRC have made a very clear organisational commitment to improving their customer offer and so much work has already been done. Why then are we not seeing improvement across the board? A change in relationship with customers (even acknowledging taxpayers as customers) is a big change. There is plenty of evidence that HMRC are adopting an increasingly systemic approach to transformation of services, however we see little evidence of what they are doing to overcome the cultural barriers that could prevent those many changes from really achieving their aims. It appears that the level of commitment to both the Charter and complaint handling in various parts of the organisation are highly dependent on the priority given to those matters by senior leaders. Leaders throughout HMRC must take a consistent approach to prioritising the Charter, customer perspective and learning for the changes to have the desired effects.

I do not underestimate the task that lies ahead but having come so far, the prize will not materialise without comprehensive plans to implement and embed change, including addressing culture. I recognise the constant pressure that HMRC is under, delivering service on a massive operational scale while responding to an ever-changing landscape, significant economic pressure and delivering on its transformational agenda.

Finally, I want to thank my team at the Adjudicator’s Office. I have enjoyed working with such an engaged group of people, all committed to providing an excellent service to our customers and stakeholders alike. Working in complaints is not always easy, but they approach their respective roles with empathy and professionalism and support each other with kindness and humour. It has been an honour.

Helen Megarry

Head of Office Update - Mike McMahon

Mike McMahon

In last year’s Annual Report I wrote ‘but as practice improves so the bar is raised’ and those words could not be truer for this year’s reflections.

We have seen significant engagement this year from our stakeholders. For HMRC, we did as we said we would and made it explicitly clear that our approach to improving customer service would be anchored to their Charter. We see the Charter as the key driver for change within the department.

To ensure that we get all that we can from Learning from Complaints through the lens of the Charter, we have changed the way we report to our stakeholders. We are now using a three-level approach which is discussed below.

To facilitate this change, we have recognised that we need to change too. Throughout the year we have been preparing for a restructure of our organisation. This is to ensure that we have the right people in the right places to deliver both our single case resolution and also our strategic and operational learning from complaints.

We now have dedicated managers responsible for:

• business delivery – everything from HR issues to infrastructure
• stakeholder engagement
• internal improvement activities – learning and development, quality assurance and wellbeing, diversity and inclusion
• our digital and analytical approach

We believe that in making these changes we have future-proofed the organisation for years to come.

Our first level three report has been illuminating. We focused on premature complaints, specifically those customers who come to us because they have not received the service they should have done from HMRC through their two-tier complaints process. We were able to identify good practice; the Customer Compliance Group have taken the Charter and translated the standards into clear objectives and expectations for all its people and we see the benefit of that for customers. However, in Customer Services Group the evidence pointed to far too many people not receiving the service that they should, counter to the ambition of the Charter. Our evidence showed that these are the people who are disproportionately vulnerable either financially or due to other circumstances.

HMRC have tough decisions to make as it manages its resources. It is clear that the Department is expected to do more with less, and this is especially apparent in Customer Services Group. But I firmly believe that customer-focused decisions now will pay dividends in the future and would urge HMRC to view improvements as part of a long-term strategy.

We have seen the VOA thrive under its current leadership. I said last year that we were seeing a change in how they thought about complaints. The culture appears far more welcoming of what complaints can teach an organisation. Where some might see an increase in complaints as a bad thing, the VOA has recognised that being open to them and the learning they bring far outweighs any negative perceptions.

Our Windrush Compensation Scheme work has continued to be equal parts challenging and rewarding. Our team has worked well with the Home Office to ensure that operational issues are dealt with quickly. This is unquestionably a group of customers who do not deserve to wait longer than is absolutely necessary for their claims to be dealt with. However, we are seeing a pattern develop where resource is not keeping pace with caseloads. We recognise that the Home Office is putting more staff on this work, but it cannot be allowed to develop into long-term delays for people who, very often, have already suffered significantly.

The issue of complaints focused work being a real career with real professional standards has been a motivating factor internally. We have placed significant resource into our approach to quality assurance. Our culture is to share best practice and to be open to learning. Rigorous quality assurance activities are fundamental to that culture.

Our people have responded brilliantly to the challenges a tough year has thrown at them. As we learn to live with COVID, practices that became embedded over an extended period had to change. It should not be underestimated how challenging that is for many and I am proud of how our people have transitioned back to a new approach to working practice.

In January we introduced our new Case Handling, Analysis and Reporting Tool (CHART). We worked in partnership with HMRC to build CHART. It is fair to say that the process was challenging as both we and HMRC rightly ensured that it would deliver all that we needed for now and the future. The good news is that our people have taken to it with minimum fuss, and it is unquestionably a big improvement on our very old previous system.

Finally, after seven years in the role we bid farewell to Helen. What Helen has achieved in those years is exceptional. A quiet, unobtrusive but nonetheless respected organisation has been elevated to levels I simply do not see in comparable organisations. That is down to Helen’s expert leadership.

Personally, Helen has supported me unstintingly as Head of Office and that support is delivered as it should be, as a true critical friend. But aside from her professionalism; her good humour and ability to puncture pomposity with a handful of carefully chosen words will be what I miss most. Her legacy though will remain in all that we do. What we go on to achieve will have its roots in Helen’s expert stewardship of the Adjudicator’s Office.

Mike McMahon

Performance and analysis of complaints investigated

The complaint process - HMRC and the VOA

The Adjudicator can consider how HMRC, or the VOA have handled a complaint, whether they have followed their policy and procedure and made reasonable decisions. Where the Adjudicator thinks they have fallen short, they will recommend what they need to do to put matters right. The Adjudicator will feedback lessons learnt to HMRC or the VOA where they think this will make their customer service better.

We do not usually accept cases that we receive more than six months after the final response from the department.

If the complaint is something we cannot look at, we will explain why. If customers are dissatisfied with any one stage of the complaint process, they have the right to take the complaint to the next stage.

Investigation

• we review information customers send us
• we carry out any necessary enquires
• we reach a decision on whether the department did anything wrong

Resolution

• we will make a formal decision on the complaint
• this will include recommendations if the Adjudicator decides the department needs to put things right
• we will write to our customer and the department explaining our decision

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Once we have given our decision, our part in the complaint is over. If our customer believes their complaint has not been resolved, they can ask a Member of Parliament (MP) to put their complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Workload 2022 to 2023

Total complaints received

Total Complaints Received Chart

The table above compares the number of complaints received by month for the years 2020 to 2021, 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023.

Download a spreadsheet with the underlying data for this chart in an accessible format.

Number of complaints

Number of complaints handled	2020 to 2021	2021 to 2022	2022 to 2023
Cases on hand 1 April	177[footnote 1]	190[footnote 2]	241[footnote 3]
New cases for investigation	1358	1205	1085
Cases resolved [footnote 4]	1346	1122	957
Cases on hand 31 March	189	273	369

The table above shows comparisons for 2020 to 2021, 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023 for cases on hand at the beginning of each year, new cases for investigation, cases resolved and the number of cases on hand at the end of each year.

Over the last year we have seen our casework almost entirely transition back to non-COVID complaints, which, whilst numerous, tended to be more straightforward. Whilst our receipts have dropped, relative to the COVID years, our casework is generally more challenging.

Complaints on hand by department at 1 April 2023

Department	Complaints on hand
HMRC	342
VOA	9
Home Office	18
Total	369

The table above shows the breakdown of work on hand at 1 April 2023 by department.

Outcomes of complaints received

Department	Cases investigated	Withdrawn	Out of Remit
HMRC	630	20	142
VOA	13	0	42
Home Office	85	14	11
Total	728	34	195

The ‘Outcomes of cases received’ table shows the breakdown of the number of cases we investigated in 2022 to 2023 for HMRC, VOA and the Home Office. A further breakdown shows how many of those cases were withdrawn by the customer and out of remit (i.e. we could not look at it).

Outcomes of investigations completed

Department	Not upheld	Fully upheld	Partially upheld
HMRC	337	66	227
VOA	9	1	3
Home Office	66	2	17
Total	412	69	247

The table above shows the split between the outcomes of our investigations in 2022 to 2023 for HMRC, the VOA and the Home Office.

Premature complaints

Department	2022 to 2023
HMRC	1168
VOA	13
Home Office	10

The table above shows the number of premature complaints (those that have not completed our stakeholder’s complaint process) that we have seen 2022 to 2023 for HMRC, the VOA and the Home Office.

Redress (£) 2022 to 2023

Department	Worry and distress (£)	Poor complaints handling (£)	Liability given up (£)	Costs (£)	Total (£)
HMRC	13,395	15,207	39,435	235,762	303,799
VOA	100	250	0	0	350

The table above shows the breakdown of the redress payments we recommended for HMRC and the VOA. This year we recorded redress payments under the headings ‘Worry and distress’, ‘Poor complaints handling’, ‘Liability given up’ (i.e. money no longer pursued), ‘Financial loss’ and ‘Costs’.

The Head of Office referred to our reporting framework in his foreword, below is a detailed explanation of each level.

Level one report

This is a self-service dashboard that that is accessible to our stakeholders and is regularly refreshed. We report by complaint teams within HMRC and for the VOA overall. This means that the teams can slice the data to meet their needs; be it by receipts, uphold rates or any other relevant permutation. We also, to ensure transparency, report on our productivity.

Level two report

The level two report focuses on highlighting trends and issues that drive complaints and negative customer experience; it also provides feedback to HMRC on their progress against embedding the Charter standards. The first report was shared with the Department in April and will be issued on a quarterly basis to support the prioritisation of learning from complaints and inform HMRC’s Complaints Strategy Insight Board (CSIB) agenda. The level two report is a culmination of insight from the complaints that we see along with feedback from our stakeholders, to join up perspectives and share learning from complaints.

The level two report also looks at our own data and the data HMRC share in terms of timeliness, cases on hand and upheld rates. We have been able to highlight disparities between the complaint handling tiers where uphold rates are high between First tier and Second tier, suggesting work is required to provide a once and done approach at First tier.

The Adjudicator’s Office delivered a thematic report on Departmental Engagement in February 2020. Within this, we provided feedback on the issues faced by customers with historic Tax Credit debt, where this had been transferred to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for collection. We said that HMRC’s narrow interpretation of departmental policy showed poor customer focus as HMRC followed their processes and procedures but did not consider the individual customer’s circumstances or the impact that recovering the debt may have. We have seen a continuation of this theme and have shared learning through the lens of the Charter. Moving forward we will seek to support HMRC by providing feedback against their progress against the UK Central Government (UKCG) Complaint Standards.

Level three report

Our first report focused on premature complaints. By this we mean the high numbers of complaints that come to us before being dealt with by HMRC. There are broadly two types of premature complaint: those where the customer has not followed HMRC’s process whilst being given every opportunity to do so, and those where the evidence shows that the customer was prevented from progressing their complaint. We focused on the latter category for our report and accounts for the majority of premature complaints that we see.

Our findings were stark. A key motivating factor in the majority of complaints that came to us was vulnerability; financial and otherwise. The conclusion was that for many people, complaints were not being prioritised in HMRC’s Customer Service Group, where the majority of complaints emanate (due to the high-volume nature of the work that they do).

We also saw a correlation between premature complaints and patchy implementation of the Charter in those high-volume areas. In simple terms, where the Charter is less well embedded, service diminished. We strongly recommended a coherent and consistent customer-focused strategy anchored to the Charter and starting with senior leaders. The anecdotal evidence suggested that frontline staff and complaints’ teams are working hard but without a clear steer from senior leaders. We saw a very different approach in the Customer Compliance areas of HMRC where the Charter is close to being fully embedded. Generally, customer service is better there.

HMRC update and case studies

When we determine the outcome and learning from individual complaints, we consider the individual who complained to us and the implications for HMRC’s wider service for all customers.

During the year 2022 to 2023 the Adjudicator resolved 630 complaints from HMRC customers. The number of complaints partially or fully upheld was 293, 41 more than in 2021 to 2022.

This year has seen HMRC recover its service standards post-pandemic with varying degrees of success. Customer Services Group have struggled with volume and also significant pressure on resources. This means that the recovery has slipped and is therefore ongoing.

In the Customer Compliance Group recovery has been quicker. This does mean that there is a two-tier level of service being provided in HMRC, depending on where your complaint sits. As much as we applaud Customer Compliance Group, we urge Customer Services Group to prioritise the recovery to parity and to use, just as Compliance Group did, the Charter as the benchmark for great customer service. In doing so understanding that complaints have been supported by ensuring resource is prioritised in this crucial customer-facing area.

Outcome of HMRC investigations

Outcome	2020 to 2021	2021 to 2022	2022 to 2023
Not Upheld	743	525	337
Partially Upheld	243	203	227
Fully Upheld	66	49	66
Out of Remit	202	204	142
Withdrawn	12	10	20

The table above shows the comparison of ‘Not upheld’, ‘Partially upheld’, ‘Fully upheld’, ‘Out of remit’, and ‘Withdrawn’, resolutions for 2020 to 2021, 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023.

We amended the descriptors for the categories of outcomes of our investigations for clarity, but the underlying categorisation remains the same as in previous years.

HMRC accepted all final recommendations that we made during the year.

Redress paid

Where appropriate we recommend HMRC pay customers financial redress in recognition of the poor level of service they received, and any relevant costs. We make recommendations in accordance with HMRC’s Complaints and Remedy Guidance. Redress can also include a recommendation that HMRC give up recovery of a customer’s liability.

Type of redress	Redress Paid (£) 2022 to 2023
Worry and distress	13,395
Poor complaints handling	15,207
Liability given up	39,435
Costs	235,762
Total	303,799

The table above shows the sums recommended this year.

Case Studies

Case study 1: Recovery of historic debt – vulnerable customer

Complaint

Mrs A did not agree with HMRC’s decision to recover tax credit over payments from 2012 to 2013 and 2013 to 2014. The overpayment arose when Mrs A and her husband appealed to the Tribunal and their joint claim was backdated which resulted in an overpayment on a previous single claim. Following a complaint and investigation in 2016, we concluded that HMRC were entitled to recover a large part of the overpayment. Records show that there were discussions at the time about the customer’s vulnerability and part of the debt written was off under exceptional circumstances.

Mrs A received no further correspondence from HMRC about the overpayment until 2021. When they did contact her she complained again about the debt. She was clearly confused about the history of the debt and why it was recoverable. HMRC acknowledged their delay in seeking recovery and offered £50 redress.

Our decision

The overpayment was technically recoverable. However, HMRC made several mistakes in recovery of the debt after 2016 which added to Mrs A’s confusion. In addition, the customer’s health and financial circumstances had deteriorated in the intervening 5 years.

We upheld the complaint. HMRC had been aware of Mrs A’s vulnerability and health issues from 2016. They failed to take any steps to recover the debt in a timely way. They then failed to consider whether repayment of the overpayment would cause financial hardship. We did not consider it reasonable to seek to collect the debt after such a long delay given the customer’s circumstances.

HMRC remitted the entire overpayment.

Learning

HMRC were aware of the customers’ vulnerability and should have taken their individual circumstances into account when considering their complaint. They should also have considered how their delays in seeking to recover the debt were such that the customer’s circumstances, and as such their ability to repay the debt, was reduced. The offer of £50 redress showed no consideration of the actual impact of the delay on the customers.

We also reflected on the full history of the customers experience, starting with the error that led them to the Tribunal, HMRC’s failure to administer the outcome of the Tribunal effectively and the subsequent delays, picking up recovery activity when the customers circumstances were dire. The complaint handling focussed narrowly on the most recent events in isolation.

Case study 2: Recovery of historic debt – Lack of responsibility for explanation

Complaint

Mr B incurred a tax credits overpayment in 2010 to 2011. HMRC transferred the overpayment to a debt collection agency in 2018. When the collection agency contacted him for payment, he asked for an explanation of the debt. The agency provided no explanation and simply proceeded to escalate recovery, threatening a court order and bailiffs.

When Mr B complained to HMRC they transferred the debt back from the collection agency and gave a partial explanation for the debt but did not address his concerns about the collection agency. Mr B continued to contest the explanation, but HMRC did not respond and in 2021 transferred the debt for collection by the DWP. Mr B complained to HMRC and asked again for an explanation of how the debt occurred.

Eventually HMRC paid £50 redress for their delays in dealing with the complaint. It took over 18 months as they failed to progress the complaint through their internal complaint process. During that period HMRC transferred the debt to DWP for collection.

Our Decision

The overpayment itself was recoverable. However, we upheld the complaint and recommended £350 redress because HMRC failed to provide Mr B with a comprehensive explanation of the debt they were recovering on multiple occasions. They also transferred the debt from the debt collection agency to DWP without notifying the customer.

Learning

We provided feedback regarding the importance of addressing all aspects of a customer’s complaint rather than focusing on a single issue through a narrow scope. In this case HMRC consistently failed to address all issues of the complaint and transferred the debt to DWP whilst also delaying the resolution of the complaint. The failure to engage in the customers complaint implied a lack of ownership of the issues relating to the debt.

Case study 3: Recovery of historic debt – failure to consider customers circumstances

Complaint

Ms C incurred tax credit overpayments in 2018 to 2019 and 2019 to 2020 as part of a joint claim with her ex-partner. She said that he made the claim without her consent and was abusive and controlling, and intercepted correspondence from HMRC. She had no knowledge that the claim was on-going.

Ms C disputed the overpayment on this basis, but HMRC found the overpayment remained recoverable from both parties, as she had been aware of the claim when it was initially made in 2010.

Following the relationship breaking down, Ms C’s ex-partner came to an agreement with HMRC to repay the overpayment in full. However, in 2021, HMRC transferred the debt to DWP for direct recovery. As part of the transfer the debt was apportioned 50/50 between the customer and her ex-partner.

During our investigation, HMRC advised us that the DWP now had ownership of the debt, and that Ms C’s ex-partner would have to contact DWP to discuss repayment arrangements.

Our decision

We upheld the complaint because HMRC failed to consider the customers vulnerability and the history of domestic abuse. We highlighted that re-introducing the repayment arrangement would require contact between both parties, placing the customer at unnecessary risk.

Based on HMRC’s failure to consider the customers clear vulnerability, and their refusal to engage with DWP and the ex-partner to facilitate a like for like payment arrangement, we recommended that HMRC waive the customers half of the debt and refund any payments already recovered from her. We also recommended HMRC pay £200 redress.

Learning

There was a working repayment arrangement in place and the overpayment was being repaid as agreed. HMRC’s action in transferring the debt to DWP, jeopardised this arrangement and put the customer at risk of harm by failing to consider her circumstances and vulnerability. When considering the complaint, HMRC took a narrow view, focussing on process and recovery of the debt, and took no responsibility for the impact of their actions on a vulnerable customer.

Case study 4: Repayment of costs

Complaint

Mr D complained on behalf of his company about a claim for costs incurred in seeking professional advice because of an incorrect decision HMRC made during a Value Added Tax (VAT) review. The company used subcontractors to provide construction services on both residential and commercial projects. Residential projects are zero rated for VAT purpose, and commercial are standard rated. In May 2018 HMRC carried out a VAT review and concluded that VAT had been incorrectly reported.

Agents for the company raised a complaint and pointed out that their VAT treatment was based on written advice provided by HMRC in 2006. They claimed a legitimate expectation to rely on that advice. HMRC disagreed, saying that they were not bound by their previous advice because, under their Admin Law guidance, the company would not suffer detriment if the law was applied correctly. They considered they could recover outstanding VAT from their subcontractors. The agents disputed that.

HMRC claimed that they had not created a legitimate expectation because they had given the company updated and accurate information on subsequent discrete projects. Their previous advice had not been clear and unambiguous.

Having exhausted the internal complaints process the agents raised the matter further demanding a further review. In January 2019 that review concluded that the company could rely on a legitimate expectation based on HMRC’s previous written advice. The company asked for reimbursement of professional costs for both accountants and lawyers, instructed following HMRC’s decision in May 2018. Total costs amounted to over £300,000 and included costs of preparing a claim for judicial review. HMRC agreed to reimburse around £44,000 in costs. They argued much of the cost incurred was unnecessary because the company failed to exhaust low-cost routes to resolution before considering Judicial Review proceedings.

Our decision

We upheld the complaint. During the complaint process HMRC gave two different reasons why legitimate expectation did not apply. It was not until the agents escalated the complaint that HMRC took legal advice and reconsidered their position. We considered whether HMRC had made a mistake that would trigger responsibility to reimburse further costs under their guidance. We concluded that they had. We found that HMRC failed to assess the evidence correctly, did not apply their guidance fairly and failed to explain why they would not pay some costs. We asked HMRC to reassess the costs claim. They increased their offer to £92,000.

Learning

We have no remit to consider the merits of a claim of legitimate expectation as that is a matter for the Court. Our role was to consider whether HMRC addressed the claim for costs in a reasonable way. The case appeared to highlight a misunderstanding of part of HMRC’s guidance on redress.

HMRC’s complaint remedy guidance explains their policy to reimburse costs incurred as a direct result of a mistake so long as those costs are reasonable and proportionate. If the costs are excessive, then financial redress should be limited to a reasonable amount.

In this case HMRC decided it was unreasonable for the company to pursue a Judicial Review as there were cheaper routes for resolution available. However, rather than limit the redress to a reasonable amount, the decision in this case was to not pay any of the costs from late 2018 until they revised their decision in January 2019. There was no explanation why the other costs incurred, for example for pursuing Alternative Dispute Resolution or preparing an appeal to Tribunal, were also unreasonable.

To apply this guidance fairly, HMRC need to explain why some costs are unreasonable and limit their redress to what they consider to be a reasonable amount. The decision should include an explanation of how the amount of the redress has been decided.

Case study 5: Recovery of overpaid tax

Complaint

Mr E moved abroad having spent a period living and working in the UK. In 2017 he submitted tax returns for 2013 to 2016.

Mr E asked HMRC to repay him overpaid tax for the 2013 to 2014 and 2014 to 2015 tax years. HMRC decided that they could not repay the tax, because the request was made after the four-year time limit for submitting a claim had passed. Mr E’s agents told us that their client made a genuine error when completing his tax returns, which resulted in him paying over £260,000 in tax on income he did not receive. As Mr E was unaware of his error until the deadline for submitting an overpayment relief claim had already passed, the Agent asked HMRC to exercise discretion and allow the claims, but this request was refused.

Our decision

We upheld the complaint on the basis that HMRC had not shown that they had reached a reasonable decision in relation to Mr E’s claim. We found that they appeared to have taken a narrow approach to application of discretion and they did not demonstrate that they gave sufficient weight to the undisputed fact that Mr E made a mistake when completing his tax returns and that he paid tax on income that he did not receive. We asked HMRC to review their decision.

After reviewing their decision HMRC initially maintained that they would not repay the tax and gave no explanation of how they had considered our recommendation. After some delay HMRC told us that they had reviewed the decision and decided to repay the overpayment. They maintained that was not related to negative press coverage or our decision but was because they made a procedural error when first considering Mr E’s application for repayment.

Learning

Ultimately the customer achieved the outcome they were seeking from their complaint, and we were satisfied that the outcome was a fair one. However, the route to that resolution was not straight forward. Although eventually HMRC did review their decision they were at pains to explain that was for procedural reasons rather than related to the points that we raised about their exercise of discretion. We raised questions about the application of the Charter in considering a reasonable outcome to Mr E’s complaint, but HMRC did not engage in that issue or address it in their consideration of our recommendation.

Case study 6: Lost passports

Complaint

Mr F sent nine non-UK passports and three birth certificates with a child benefit application form to the Child Benefit Office (CBO). He sent the documents using the Royal Mail tracking service that recorded the weight of the parcel. The CBO returned the birth certificates but not the passports.

Mr F called the CBO about the passports and was told that as there was no record of the passports being received and that he should contact the Royal Mail. Having done that, Mr F again contacted the CBO who told him that the matter was under investigation. HMRC made enquiries of both the Royal Mail and their internal team dealing with misplaced documents.

The CBO noted that Mr F had checked a box on the child benefit application form to indicate that passports were included with his application. However, they maintained that their records showed that they did not receive the passports and he should contact his embassy in case the lost documents had been returned there. Mr F continued to press the matter with the CBO.

Our decision

We upheld the complaint. The evidence suggested that Mr F sent the passports to the CBO, who received them in an undamaged package. The only credible explanation for their loss was that they went missing in the CBO’s system. When considering the complaint, the CBO failed to consider the evidence the customer provided, the potential weakness in their own systems or the lack of a robust and detailed policy and process to investigate complaints about lost documents. We recommended the CBO pay redress of £350 and the costs of obtaining replacement passports.

Learning

When HMRC require valuable documents to support an application for benefit, they have responsibility to treat them with care. When things go wrong, they must have robust and effective processes and if the missing documents cannot be located, they must take responsibility for that. In this case HMRC put too much reliance on the fact that they had no record of receiving the documents and ignored the circumstantial evidence that they had been posted and were not lost in transit. They put the onus on the customer to carry out enquiries of the Royal Mail and the embassy rather than consider the obvious shortfalls of their own system.

Case study 7: Failure to identify a known issue and to progress a complaint

Complaint

Ms G worked for the NHS drawing a monthly salary for regular employment. She had a second, similar payroll number for ‘bank nursing’ work, for which she was paid weekly. She contacted HMRC on numerous occasions to resolve issues with her tax codes and end of year P60 details for her ‘bank’ work. The monthly pay had not been used in an end of year calculation and HMRC had incorrectly issued a substantial repayment of tax.

At the first stage of their complaint process HMRC told Ms G they had taken action to rectify the situation, but she was still not on the correct tax code and realised there would be a substantial current year underpayment. The customer contacted HMRC on several occasions subsequently and came to our office as her case had not been progressed through the internal complaint process. We contacted HMRC asking them to escalate the case and the customer received £100 redress and her tax affairs brought up to date.

Our decision

We did not make a decision in this case as it came to us prematurely. We contacted HMRC asking them to escalate the case and the customer received £100 redress and her tax affairs brought up to date.

Learning

HMRC are aware of problems where NHS employees have separate but similar payroll numbers for ad hoc “bank nursing” weekly paid work and their regular monthly salary. They have undertaken work to correct this. However, some cases have not been included in the exercise and customers can struggle to identify or explain the problem. Although aware of the issue, HMRC do not always identify and make corrections promptly. The poor customer service in this case was exacerbated by a failure in the complaint handling process. Resolution of a complaint should not be reliant on a customer bringing their complaint to us prematurely, out of frustration.

Case study 8: Underpayment of tax – failure to progress complaint

Complaint

Mr H contacted us because HMRC were pursuing him for an underpayment of tax of £30,000, dating from the 2014 to 2015 tax year. He was contacted by a debt collection agency although he denied that he owed any tax.

For some time HMRC’s letters to Mr H were returned as undelivered. By the time they reconnected, HMRC had progressed to debt collection of tax arrears and additional interest and penalties. Mr H contacted HMRC on multiple occasions and made a complaint in June 2022.

Because he received no response to his complaint Mr H approached us in September 2022 and we asked HMRC to consider the matter. He had made numerous attempts to resolve the matter with HMRC. He explained he only had a single employment for over 30 years and could not understand how a debt might have arisen.

He found being pursued by a collection agency very stressful. He obtained his employment history through a Subject Access Request and supplied that information. That indicated a clerical error that would be straightforward to fix.

Our decision

We did not make a decision in this case as it came to us prematurely. When HMRC addressed his complaint they apologised for their delay. They confirmed that his tax account had been corrected, all charges and penalties removed and paid £100 redress for the delay in putting matters right. HMRC concluded that there had been a ‘filing error’ and there was no outstanding tax due.

Learning

The customer received an incorrect tax demand for a significant sum which was then referred to a collection agency for recovery action. He made multiple attempts to contact HMRC which were unsuccessful. When he complained he still received no response. Customer service and complaint handling failures compounded the impact of a clerical error. Mr H suffered over 8 months of uncertainty and associated worry and distress for a matter that should have been resolved with his first phone call. It was only when; out of desperation he came to us that his complaint was resolved.

Stakeholder Feedback

HMRC – First Permanent Secretary and Chief Executive Jim Harra

Jim Harra

HMRC has greatly valued the engagement and feedback from the Adjudicator during her tenure. Helen has been HMRC’s Adjudicator since 2016 overseeing an effective independent tier of our complaint process and helping HMRC to improve our services and trust in the tax system. During that time, she has played an influential role in shaping how HMRC responds to and learns from complaints, supporting HMRC to move closer to achieving its Charter standards. She has successfully led the Adjudicator’s Office through challenging times, whilst championing the voice of the customer.

Improving customer experience is at the forefront of HMRC’s objectives and the Charter continues to be a key driver in support of our vision to be a trusted, modern tax and customs organisation. 2022 to 2023 was a challenging year for HMRC and we had to make difficult choices about the work we prioritised to protect our essential services and the livelihoods of customers who need our support, while staying within our departmental budget. These decisions meant that service levels in complaint handling have fallen below our service standards. To address this, we’re accelerating changes to the way we approach customer service. We realise the key to doing this is through more and better online services and as we make these changes, the standards set out in our Charter remain at the heart of what we do. As we encourage more customers to self-serve online, we remain committed to giving those who need extra help and those with complex issues the support they need, and we appreciate the Adjudicator’s continued support and insights to help us meet these commitments.

We are aware of the issues relating to premature escalation of complaints to the Adjudicator and have taken several actions to address this, such as delivering improvements to customer guidance and processes to improve the customer journey. We recognise there is always more we can do and remain committed to learning from real-time feedback to continue improving our services.

We continue to improve the way we handle complaints in HMRC in alignment with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s new UK Central Government Complaint Standards launched in Autumn 2022. These standards, which were developed in collaboration with governments departments, will deliver a consistent cross-government approach to complaint handling. I’m pleased that we in HMRC are leading the way in promoting and embedding the standards across government.

We have worked closely with the Adjudicator’s Office to launch our new case management system, a joint project with the Adjudicator’s Office, which went live for HMRC in March 2023. The system will provide significant improvements to the complaint handling processes and enable better use of customer insight to enhance our reporting, handling, and learning from complaints to further support improvements to customer experience.

I was pleased to see the good progress made by the Adjudicator’s Office to deliver against the goals of their 3-year business plan. I also welcome the improvements the Adjudicator has made within her office, including the internal restructuring and improved reporting process, allowing them to further achieve their ambition to become a learning organisation.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Helen for her guidance and feedback over the past seven years.

HMRC published its formal response to the Adjudicator’s last Annual Report in November 2022 and is committed to publish a response to this report by autumn 2023.

Jim Harra

VOA update and case studies

During the period 2022 to 2023 we received 57 new complaints. We resolved 55 cases in total but only 13 were within our remit to investigate.

The Adjudicator is unable to consider complaints about valuation decisions as these are outside of her remit. A significant number of the complaints that come to us ultimately relate to valuation decisions which results in a high percentage of complaints out of remit.

This year has seen an increase in complaints from the VOA which reflects its activity in viewing complaints as a positive opportunity to learn. We are aware that the VOA has worked hard to improve both its complaint handling and also its customer service more generally. This is warmly welcomed. We have been pleased generally with how the VOA has taken a strong customer-focused position, as we understand it throughout its operations.

Outcome of VOA investigations

Outcome	2020 to 2021	2021 to 2022	2022 to 2023
Not Upheld	19	5	9
Partially Upheld	3	1	3
Fully Upheld	1	0	1
Out of Remit	31	28	42
Withdrawn	0	0	0

The table above shows the outcome of VOA cases investigated. It shows ‘Out of remit’ complaints continue to make up most cases that come to us.

Redress Paid

On occasion, the Adjudicator recommends that the VOA pay a monetary sum of redress to customers in recognition of the poor level of service they received, and other relevant costs.

Type of redress	Redress Paid (£) 2022 to 2023
Worry and distress	100
Poor complaints handling	250
Liability given up	0
Costs	0
Total	350

The table above shows the sums recommended this year.

The VOA accepted all the Adjudicator’s recommendations.

Case study

Case study 1: Learning from an upheld complaint

Complaint

Mr A complained that the VOA delayed for over a year in dealing with his council tax band challenge and making their decision to reduce the property band from G to F. He also complained about the VOA’s handling of his complaint.

Mr A moved into his property in January 2021 and in February 2021 sought an informal review of the council tax band. The VOA told him he had not provided sufficient evidence to support a review and after further correspondence and evidence they concluded that a change in band was not justified.

Mr A applied for a formal review in May 2021 which was concluded in July 2021, with no change to the band. There was a further exchange of information about the property size, and in September 2021 the VOA registered Mr A’s challenge as an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal Service. In April 2022 the VOA contacted Mr A to say that they had reconsidered his case and agreed to reduce the banding. When Mr A complained about the delays to their decision they maintained that they had done nothing wrong.

Our decision

We upheld the complaint. We found that, from May 2021 until March 2022, Mr A provided evidence to support his application to reduce the band. However, the VOA delayed acting on the evidence. It was not until April 2022 that they reviewed the evidence and re-assessed the property and reached their decision to reduce the band. They had several opportunities to review the evidence earlier in the process and could have reached their decision to reduce the band sooner.

Learning

VOA did not engage with the issues of Mr A’s complaint and did not take any responsibility for the delays in reaching a decision. They did not acknowledge and were not transparent in explaining what went wrong.

Our remit in VOA cases is limited and it is unusual that we fully uphold a VOA complaint. The VOA agreed to reflect on our conclusions to ensure that they learn from this individual experience. They did not apply their Charter regarding “responsiveness” as they did not work with the customer to promptly update information they held about his property.

Stakeholder Feedback

VOA – Chief Executive Jonathan Russell

Jonathan Russell

Last year was significant for the Valuation Office Agency. Alongside our core services we delivered 2.1 million bespoke property valuations for the 2023 Revaluation. Revaluations are always a huge undertaking, and understandably lead to increased scrutiny of our work.

It is currently a very challenging time for many people and businesses, and the VOA is acutely aware of the pressures our customers are under. We have seen increased volumes of business rates checks as we approached the closure of the 2017 rating list along with substantial increases in customers challenging their Council Tax bands.

We have continued to focus on customer experience, improving the way we write to customers, and rolling out new training to caseworkers. Changes to our online guidance, have been based on customer feedback, research and insights. Complaints, though remaining small in number, are an important source of feedback. I have a keen interest in the lessons we are gathering as well as the positive changes we have made to our complaints process. The Complaints Resolution Team now have a direct reporting line into me, and I can see first-hand how we are putting things right for customers. Taking a resolution focused approach and applying complaint handling principles has helped to drive improved customer service. I am delighted to see the Adjudicator’s recognition of this.

We continue to work closely with the Adjudicator’s Office and our relationship is a positive one. I welcome their insight and recommendations for improvements, and I look forward to continuing our productive working relationship this year.

Jonathan Russell

Home Office update

We continue to work positively with the Home Office to ensure that customers, some of the most vulnerable that we see, receive a quick and appropriate response to their compensation claims. Some of the most positive interactions have come from learning from the claims that we receive, and we have seen a willingness by the Home Office to take that learning on board and into its assessments of claims going forward.

However, it is also apparent that the Home Office are struggling to deal with the complaints it has on hand, and this has led to a slow-down in the number of complaints that we have seen in the financial year. We continue to press the Home Office to prioritise resource in this area. We have seen some evidence that recruitment activities are addressing delays, but we would urge the Home Office to ensure that activity translates into timely responses.

We have also been joint defendants with the Home Office in relation to some Judicial Review challenges. We have separate representation to the Home Office and have decided on the challenges to date to take a position of assisting the court, so neither conceding nor defending the challenges. We are satisfied that this is the appropriate approach given both our position has an independent tier but also because the challenges more broadly concern the Home Office’s decision-making.

Total of new requests for review

New requests for review	2020 to 2021	2021 to 2022	2022 to 2023
Number received	35	136	78

The table above shows the number of cases received each year for 2020 to 2021, 2021 to 2022, and 2022 to 2023.

Outcomes of Investigations

Outcome	2020 to 2021	2021 to 2022	2022 to 2023
Not Upheld	10	70	66
Partially Upheld	0	13	17
Fully Upheld	1	4	2
Out of Remit	0	6	11
Withdrawn	15	3	14

The table above shows outcomes of investigations for the years 2020 to 2021, 2021 to 2022, and 2022 to 2023.

Case studies

Case study 1: Compensation under heads of claim

Complaint

Mr A applied for compensation under several heads of claim.

Mr A arrived in the UK from St Lucia in 1964 on his Citizen of the UK and Colonies passport to join his mother who was already living in the UK. In the 1980s, Mr A lost his passport and applied for a replacement. However, he was refused a British passport each time he applied on the basis that he was a citizen of St Lucia. Mr A said his inability to obtain a replacement British passport prevented him from obtaining permanent employment which resulted in him losing his mortgaged home and his pension being impacted. He said the financial difficulties he experienced had a significant impact on his mental and physical health. The Home Office did not make any award and he asked us to review his decision.

Our decision

The Home Office’s decision to offer a NIL award was consistent with the WCS rules as Mr A had been able to travel and re-enter the UK using his St Lucian passport, as well as claim benefits. This showed he had been able to demonstrate his lawful status. It was also correct that he was not eligible for a British passport in 1986 and 2005. This was because when St Lucia gained independence in 1979, he automatically became a St Lucian citizen. This is in line with the law at the time. Mr A could not demonstrate that the change in law impacted him negatively.

But, whilst Mr A was not eligible under the scheme, the Home Office failed to explain the context and bearing of St Lucia’s independence on its decision.

Learning

While the Home Office’s decision to offer a NIL award was consistent with the WCS rules, they took a narrow view of the claim solely within the context of eligibility against the scheme’s rules. The Home Office failed to explain or address Mr A’s misunderstanding about his nationality and eligibility for a passport which was the main factor underpinning his claim. We highlighted the need to provide clear explanations to help people understand the scope of the WCS scheme and their circumstances in relation to it; not just following a rules or process-based approach to decision making.

The Home Office accepted our review and wrote to Mr A explaining the law concerning passports as they related to Mr A.

Case study 2: Close family member claim

Complaint

Mr B made an application as a close family member for compensation under the heads of Impact on Life and Discretionary. In his claim for a discretionary award Mr B told the Home Office that he had to financially support his mother (who was a primary claimant) for a decade. This was because his mother was unable to access employment and was unable to support herself financially during that time. Mr B provided bank statements detailing money sent to his mother and copies of receipts for bills paid on her behalf during the period of loss.

At initial assessment and First Tier review, the Home Office concluded that the costs Mr B had incurred were not a result of him being unable to demonstrate his lawful status, as everyone in the UK incurs living costs, regardless of status. They therefore concluded that no award was due on that basis.

We highlighted to the Home Office that the costs incurred by Mr B were not normal living costs, as they were additional costs incurred supporting his mother on top of his own living expenses. We also noted that in their consideration of his mother’s claim, they had paid an award for loss of access to employment during the period of loss which confirmed she was unable to support herself, which in turn supported Mr B’s claim.

The Home Office considered that making a payment to Mr B would amount to double recovery. They had already reimbursed the mother’s loss of earnings from loss of access to employment and paying her son what it cost her to support his mother was, in their view paying the money a second time.

We reviewed this against the WCS rules and found it did not meet the criteria to be classed as double recovery.

Our decision

We considered that the costs incurred by Mr B in supporting her mother, were a distinct and separate financial impact that he incurred, separate from his mother’s loss of earnings. In addition, the Home Office’s conclusion that this would be double recovery inferred that they expected the mother to reimburse Mr B for this financial support out of her own award. We concluded that the WCS rules do not allow the Home Office to set the expectation that a primary claimant should reimburse costs incurred by a close family member out of their own award.

On this basis, we upheld the customers complaint and recommended that the Home Office reimburse Mr B for the financial support he had given his mother over the 10-year period.

The Home Office accepted our recommendation and concluded that we had identified a gap in the WCS rules. They used our recommendation as the basis of a policy review and subsequently introduced a new category of claim; “living costs” for close family members to claim for financial support provided to a primary claimant. The Home Office conducted a review and invited all previously concluded claims who may be eligible under the new head of claim to make an additional claim.

Learning

This case demonstrates the impact our recommendations can have, and while we have no formal remit to change policy, the insight our reviews provide and influence they have to improve the WCS.

Stakeholder feedback

Home Office - Permanent Secretary Matthew Rycroft CBE

Matthew Rycroft CBE

Working with partners is crucial to the Home Office being able to assure our processes are effective and to get compensation decisions right first time. The Adjudicator’s Office independent assessments and feedback are an essential part of ensuring that the Home Office can provide the best quality service possible to all applicants to the Windrush Compensation Scheme.

Where the Adjudicator’s Office have made recommendations, Home Office staff working on the WCS give them careful consideration and, where appropriate, ensure timely implementation. Feedback from the Adjudicator has helped to shape fundamental changes to policy and guidance on how we assess claims, and to embed these changes.

The Home Office is fully committed to continuing to learn from the wrongs of the past and making decisions that put individuals at the heart of everything we do.

Matthew Rycroft CBE

Wider office achievements

In September 2021 we published our 2021 to 2024 Business Plan which set out proposed activity for the next three years. As with our previous Business Plans, we continue to focus on four key themes: Our people, Our customers, Our organisation and Learning from Complaints.

In the plan we committed to reporting on the success of our corporate aims for each year measured against the aims outlined in the preceding year’s annual report.

We have set out below our organisational achievements against the goals for year two of our business plan which cover the period April 2022 to March 2023.

Our people - We will develop and engage our people to benefit from their experience and potential

• we have rolled out 360 feedback with all managers and the Senior Leadership Team have shared their reports across the office to demonstrate the power of transparency and conspicuous learning

• we have also developed and delivered the first of a multi-module technical skill programme via a learning calendar. The first session, a combination of theory and practical application, explored the role of the Adjudicator and decision making

• a number of staff have or will shortly have completed external management and project management qualifications

• our Wellbeing, Diversity and Inclusion group have continued to provide a mix of personal support and fun activities during the last 12 months

• post pandemic we have moved to hybrid working which provides more flexible working patterns for individuals but still allows for face-to-face support as required

• we held Away Days in September 2022 and April 2023 to support cohesion and understanding of our cultural values in the post-pandemic world

• our Quality Assurance (QA) project has provided us with the data to understand strengths and weaknesses in our practice providing assessments at organisational, team and individual level

• we are working with our investigators to support the number of people who can issue decisions under the Adjudicator’s Delegated Authority. This is based on demonstrable competence and subject to a rigorous assessment of the risk a case might present if not issued by the Adjudicator

Our customers - We will continually improve the service we provide our customers

• work is ongoing as part of our Customer Service Standards projects to review all aspect of customer interaction with our services and make changes where needed

• our internal processes ensure we deal with Freedom of Information Requests (FOI) and Subject Access Requests (SAR) requests in accordance with legislation. We have not in any case exceeded the time limits set out in law

• we have worked closely with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) and the Ombudsman Association on areas of common interest. In particular the implementation of UK Central Government Complaint Standards

• we have committed with ExCom endorsement to review customer complaints against the HMRC Charter standards

• senior leaders attended the Ombudsman Association conference annual conference and continue to network with other complaint handling bodies

• we have provided significant support to the Home Office as they set up their new Independent Case Examiner departments and have also worked closely with Department for Works and Pensions Independent Case Examiner including presenting at their away day conference on Learning from Complaints best practice

• extensive work and collaboration with HMRC and VOA on ensuring our reporting mechanisms meet the needs of all parties

Our organisation - We will continue to transform the way we work, responding to the needs of our customers to become a more efficient and accountable organisation

• our new telephony system went live in summer 2022 which provides better access for customers and staff as well as call recording facility

• CHART, our new case management system went live in January 2023, we are now maximising the benefits of the new system for both staff and customers

• we have appointed a digital lead to oversee production and maintenance of all data

• we are promoting the increased use of PowerBi to allow self-serve of performance data both within the Adjudicator’s Office and the departments

• we continue to benchmark our achievements against the HMRC Smarter Ways of Working matrix

We have re-organised our senior management structure which will allow:

• casework managers to concentrate on the learning and development of their investigators

• functional lead managers to develop expertise in their disciplines to enhance our capability in the digital, quality, learning and people spaces

Learning from Complaints - We will use our insight and expertise to help our stakeholders learn from complaints to improve services to customers

• the review and implementation of a new business reporting framework has led to greater stakeholder engagement in learning from complaints

• improved Single Point of Contact (SPOC) interaction facilitated by the new reporting framework at report level one and level two providing real time performance data and insight into current complaint themes

• our first level three thematic report in February 2023 focused on premature complaints

• We have contributed to HMRC’s Charter Report highlighting the changes needed to support embedding of their Charter standards

• We have been a full and active member of HMRC’s customer-focused Customer Experience Committee (led by an HMRC non-executive director)

Feedback on our corporate aims from our HMRC stakeholders

As we did last year, we asked our stakeholders to feedback on how they think we are doing under our corporate aims. We have published HMRC, VOA and the Home Office’s senior leadership responses above. In addition to the formal contributions, HMRC and VOA responded specifically in relation to how we are meeting our business objectives:

Our Customers – we will improve the service we give our customers

‘HMRC’s senior leaders have endorsed the Adjudicator’s proposal to use insight from complaints to hold us to account on delivery of the Charter standards.’

‘(We) recognise the importance of learning from complaints and greatly value the feedback and challenge received from the Adjudicator and the Adjudicator’s Office to help us move closer to delivering a trusted and modern tax and customs service.’

‘(We) welcome the Adjudicator’s support to benchmark HMRC against the PHSO UK Central Government Complaint Standards. Their feedback will support the department to maximise the benefit from learning from complaints to embed the standards and execute our role as a trailblazer.’

‘HMRC welcomes the Adjudicator’s departmental improvements (including) their internal restructure and improved reporting process allowing them to further enhance their Learning from Complaint offer and achieve their ambition to become a learning organisation.’

‘Our engagement with the Adjudicator is open and receptive to views and challenge… we recognise there is always more we can do and remain committed to learning from the real-time feedback the Adjudicator and team provide…’

(VOA) feel that the relationship with The Adjudicator’s Office has strengthened. (The Adjudicator’s Office have) been very supportive as we have implemented changes in the team to focus on resolution, rather than investigation, and remain a great source of advice and counsel.

(VOA) Our…liaison meetings with The Adjudicator’s Office have been replaced with regular liaison meetings (including) HMRC. This is often helpful from a good practice perspective but, given their scale, understandably tends to focus on HMRC. We are missing the dedicated space for VOA issues to be discussed, including case-handling and insight – and would welcome a conversation about the options for this.

Following this feedback we will now be setting up dedicated VOA liaison meetings in addition to the VOA and HMRC meetings.

Learning from Complaints - We will use our insight and expertise to help our stakeholders learn from complaints to improve services to customers 

‘HMRC values the Adjudicator’s contribution at the Customer Experience Committee (and) HMRC’s Complaint Strategy and Insight Board which continues to ensure coherence between customer complaints, wider customer experience issues and HMRC’s strategic objectives.’

‘HMRC are encouraged by the work undertaken by the Adjudicator’s office to continuously improve the way data and actionable insight is provided. This has provided better learning from complaints at all levels across HMRC.’

‘Feedback and insights from the Adjudicator’s Office around how we can improve customer service and complaint handling are valued. We’d welcome the opportunity to be involved in groups looking to promote that, and to work with you on this for the VOA.’

Our Corporate Aims 2023 to 2024

In line with our Business Plan and in the spirit of continuous improvement we have set stretching organisational aims for the period April 2023 to March 2024. We hope to be able to report similar success in our 2024 annual report.

Our people:
We will develop and engage our people to benefit from their experience and potential

Corporate aim	Activity	Measure
We will identify knowledge gaps and development needs, implementing appropriate learning to improve the skills and opportunities for all our people.	1. Managers will maximise use of their leadership skills to develop and support their people 2. We will ensure our people have access to learning appropriate to both their technical and development need 3. We will introduce a 3-tiered Learning and Development offering: 3.1 Structured induction-systematic learning 3.2 Continuous learning 3.3 Career development 4. We will roll out 360 feedback and personal branding pyramids to all our people 5. We will introduce a revised performance development framework to clearly articulate individual goals and strengthen accountability for performance and development	Improved feedback in the annual civil service People Survey and feedback from engagement activities Success of 360 feedback as a development tool demonstrated through Performance and Development Conversations (PDC) and management scores in the People Survey Accredited internal/external qualifications based on individual development needs Roll out of individual and organisational quality assurance dashboards with evidence of demonstrable improvement in next 12 months Introduction of revised performance and development framework with evidence of demonstrable improvement in next 12 months
Our diversity, wellbeing and inclusion plans will ensure all  our people feel supported and valued.	1. Embed Adjudicators Office Values Behaviours to build an engaged workforce and empower our people to make a difference 2. Promote personal wellbeing 3. Actively promote diversity and inclusion throughout the organisation creating a safe space for people to bring themselves to work 4. Use HMRC’s Race Equality Action Plan to inform AO activities to secure an anti-racist workforce culture and foster inclusion 5. Embrace Smarter Ways of working	Results of regular surveys of our people Improved engagement scores as part of the annual People Survey Benchmarking against the Smarter Ways of Working matrix
To build and develop an engaged organisation through inclusive and proportionate communications.	1. Embed our transition to a functional management structure which clearly defines manager’s areas of responsibility 2. Review and streamline internal communications 3. A member of the Senior Leadership Team will have the responsibility of ensuring People Survey results are linked to our planning activity	We will measure the success of our activities through regular surveys of our people Improved engagement scores as part of the annual People Survey
We will further develop our quality assurance process to highlight both areas for development and existing strengths.	1. Our Quality Assurance framework will be embedded into business-as-usual activity 2. Power BI will be used to compile reports at organisational, team and individual levels 3. We will be using these reports to improve development conversations across the organisation, benchmarking what good looks like	More focussed conversations on quality, benchmarking what good looks like across the organisation Manager feedback through PDC shows a clear emphasis on identifying learning opportunities from QA feedback Improved quality scores demonstrated by the data gathered from the QA checking process

Our customers:
We will improve the service we give our customers

Corporate aim	Activity	Measure
We will ensure that our customers feel heard when they raise concerns about our service.	1. We deal with all Subject Access Requests (SAR), Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, and service complaints timeously 2. Through our customer-focused project work we will explore options for improving customer feedback mechanisms 3. We will respond to all post recommendation requests and escalate as appropriate	Compliance with statutory regulations Feedback from customers as part of a revised approach to gathering satisfaction rates Monthly performance data demonstrating timely responses to our customers
We will work with customer groups to support strong customer service.	1. We will work closely with organisations such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) and the Ombudsman Association on areas of common interest 2. We will support the HMRC Charter and complaints strategy and implementation of UK Central Government Complaint Standards 3. We will use greater flexibility in our improved case management system and reporting framework to identify trends in customer complaints sooner 4. We will further develop our customer-focused project work to enhance the customer experience and improve accessibility	Bench marking against the UKCG matrix Our approach to reporting; Level two and Level three reports will demonstrate clear evidence of holding HMRC to account
We will establish strong working relationships with and engage fully with all internal and external customers and stakeholders.	1. Through our new reporting framework we will share our insight and approach on Learning from Complaints 2. We will work internally and with stakeholders to identify opportunities to apply our Insight and expertise to provide evidence of risks and/or blockers to HMRC embedding and applying the Charter	Level two and Level three reports vehicle for sharing insight Continued improvement in our SPOC activities and stakeholder engagement Effective contribution to HMRC Charter Annual Report
We will reduce the number of complaints that come to us prematurely.	1. Our new reporting framework will improve the quality of the quantitative and qualitative data we provide to HMRC and VOA and highlight the potential impact this may have on their customers 2. We will be working with HMRC to ensure our insight is as impactful across the department as possible	Level three report February 2023 ‘Premature Complaints’ will generate improvements for customers through demonstrably raising the issue via Complaints Strategy Insight Board leading to a decrease in premature complaints Taking on more premature complaints at Second Tier will demonstrate the need to improve to HMRC leading to a decrease in premature complaints overall

Our organisation:
we will transform the way we work, responding to the needs of our customers in order to become a more efficient and accountable organisation

Corporate aim	Activity	Measure
We will continue to ensure that our digital platforms are fit for purpose and support easy access for our customers and usability for our people.	1. We will maximise use of our new technology (case management and telephony) for benefit of customers, stakeholders and our people 2. we will ensure all staff have the necessary skills to take advantage of the benefits the new system offers 3. we will ensure succession plans in place so that our people have access to the relative skills required at all levels of digital maturity	Reduced complaints re accessibility to our service Clear evidence that our people can effectively use digital tools through PDC
We will support HMRC’s commitment to hybrid working.	1. We will embed Smarter Ways of Working matrix, focussing on the opportunity this provides for optimising flexibility of working patterns whilst ensuring our business needs are met	Results of benchmarking our maturity attainment against our Smarter Ways of Working matrix
We will operate efficiently, balancing strong performance and cost effectiveness.	1. We will adhere to our timeliness standards and ensure cases are progressed quickly and to a high standard 2. We will regularly review all strategic and operational risks and ensure mitigation action taken as necessary 3. We will set clear performance measures for our people, taking account of complexity of casework and where people are adding value elsewhere 4. We will exploit our forecasting tool to ensure that we are properly resourced to meet fluctuations in demand to meet customer expectations 5. We will continue to benchmark internal quality standards and report on adherence to those standards in a consistent way 6. For our Corporate Service team we will set strong performance standards to ensure delivery of quality outputs to support the business 7. We will recruit to meet need, balancing that against efficient use of resources	Management of both staffing and non-staff costs within budget Adherence to service standards: - All complaints received cleared with 6 months from receipt - No complaint waiting more than 2 months before investigation started - Have an average case handling time of less than 4 months We will increase the percentage of our people who attain Delegated Authority Clear evidence of improvement individually and organisationally benchmarked against QA standards Clear evidence of casework performance with improvement individually and organisationally

Learning from complaints:
we will use our insight and expertise to help our stakeholders learn from complaints to improve services to customers

Corporate aim	Activity	Measure
We will build strong working relations with our stakeholders.	1. We will ask our stakeholders and customers what they need from us as an independent complaints body and factor into our plans 2. We will regularly ask for feedback on the success of our activities in improving customer service from both stakeholders and customers 3.We will work internally and with stakeholders to fine tune our reporting methods into finished products 4. We will maximise intelligence from our stakeholder interactions– creating an engaged virtuous circle of learning and empower the voice of the complaint handling community	Production of Level one, two and three reports as business-as-usual activity (BAU) and evidence of engagement in those reports Feedback from our stakeholders to determine what we do well and what we could improve Continued improvement in our engagement activities from frontline to senior leaders
We will share insight in the best way possible.	1. We will provide robust, actionable information for our stakeholders to help them improve their customer service and complaint handling 2. We will build a sustainable, low maintenance reporting system for sharing complaint performance data both for the department and the AO 3.Provide evidence of risks and/or blockers to HMRC embedding, applying or implementing the Charter through focus on discrete but cross-cutting topic(s) 4. Share our approach with stakeholders at all levels, seek feedback to secure engagement with Learning from Complaints	Production of Level one, two and three reports as BAU and evidence of engagement in those reports AO Annual Report Contribution to HMRC Charter Report
We will create groups that support learning from complaints.	1. We will establish internal structures that ensure learning is understood and shared across the organisation, harnessing our project strands around quality assurance, learning and development and policy decision making	We will review all groups that support Learning from Complaints internally and externally to ensure best practice is embedded

Customer feedback about our service

We always welcome feedback from customers as it helps us to review and improve our processes.

We apply the same approach when investigating complaints about our office as for complaints about HMRC and VOA and the Home Office. Our GOV.UK website tells our customers how to raise concerns about our service. They can do this through our new electronic complaints form or by writing to us.

During the period April 2022 to March 2023, we received 13 complaints about the level of service we provided. The main areas of complaint related to customers unable to open our emails sent from the encrypted mailbox and the lack of clarity in respect of our document retention policy.

We always consider feedback and where wider lessons are raised; we use these opportunities to improve our customer service.

Queries about Adjudicator’s Office recommendations

The Adjudicator’s Office does not reconsider cases because the customer does not agree with our decisions. However, in some cases we can decide to provide a further response to clarify the recommendation. All our recommendation letters explain the process for referring a case to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman if the customer remains dissatisfied with our handling of their complaint.

Statutory reporting requirements

Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests

As a public authority we must publish certain information about our activities and members of the public can request information held by a public authority. During April 2022 to March 2023, we received four FOI requests.

Subject Access Requests (SAR)

Under Article 15 of the UK GDPR, we must provide customers with any personal data we hold if they request it. During the period April 2022 to March 2023, we received 15 Subject Access Requests.

Funding for the financial year 2022 to 2023

HMRC customers form the largest group of users of the Adjudicator’s services. The Service Level Agreement between HMRC and the Adjudicator ensures staff, accommodation, equipment, and materials are supplied to enable her to provide an independent review of unresolved complaints. A funding agreement is in place between the Adjudicator’s Office and the Home Office to provide resources for the Windrush Compensation Scheme. The Adjudicator is an independent appointment agreed by the organisations for which she adjudicates.

The Adjudicator’s salary is set by reference to the Civil Service SCS2 pay scale.

Our delegated budget for 2022 to 2023 was £2.913m and expenditure from the same period £2.695m.

How we are organised

The Adjudicator

Paul Douglas

Helen Megarry left the Adjudicator’s Office on 31 March 2023. Paul Douglas has been appointed as interim Adjudicator pending appointment of a permanent Adjudicator.

Head of Office

Mike McMahon

Head of Insight, Engagement and Learning

Sarah Doherty

Complaints Investigation and Corporate Lead

Clare Kirby

Complaints Investigation and Data Lead

Mandy Fields

How to contact us

Online

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-adjudicator-s-office

Post

The Adjudicator’s Office

PO Box 10280

Nottingham

NG2 9PF

Our address is changing from 22 July 2023 to:

The Adjudicator's Office

PO Box 11222

Nottingham

NG2 9AD

Phone

Telephone: 0300 057 1111

Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm

Closed weekends and bank holidays.

Please note that we are only able to help with complaints about HMRC and the VOA, and complaints and reviews for the Home Office’s WCS.

1. 2 additional 2019 to 2020 cases identified in August 2020 (adjusted to 177). Noted as in year reconciliation of reported 2020 figure ↩

2. 2021 to 2022 adjusted to 190 following review, 2 cases removed as premature, and 3 cases included as additional late receipts ↩

3. 32 case adjustment due to being identified as premature and deducted from total figure in 2021 to 2022 ↩

4. includes investigation, withdrawn, out of remit and department reconsidered ↩