Research and analysis

HMRC Stakeholder Research 2024: Summary Report

Published 29 May 2025

  

Prepared by Woodnewton Associates Limited for HMRC 

Authors: Mark Gill and James Humphreys 

Report Number: 797

July 2024

Disclaimer: The views in this report are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of HM Revenue and Customs. 

1.   Introduction

1.1 Background

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has commissioned stakeholder research each year since 2012, with the exclusion of tax year 2019 to 2020. The research provides insights into the views of stakeholder groups. Findings inform improvements to the way HMRC engages with these audiences to better fulfil its strategic objectives.

1.2 Research objectives

The independent research agency, Woodnewton, was commissioned by HMRC to undertake research among its stakeholders to understand their perceptions of HMRC. The research included:

• HMRC’s overall reputation – strengths and areas for improvement

• the extent to which HMRC is delivering on its vision to be a trusted, modern tax and customs department, and can be described as competent and fair

• satisfaction with stakeholder engagement and communications, including issues around collaboration

• views on HMRC’s digital services

1.3 Method

The emphasis of the research was restructured this year to provide greater depth of understanding. A larger number of qualitative depth interviews were conducted to allow for more nuanced stakeholder views to be captured. The quantitative survey had fewer questions to decrease the burden of completion and increase response rates.

Woodnewton conducted the research in 3 phases. Firstly, a core detailed qualitative phase was completed, which concluded with a workshop which allowed interview participants to offer further clarifications. The findings from this phase were used to develop the second phase, consisting of a quantitative survey. Finally, follow-up qualitative interviews were conducted (drawn from a sample of those who completed the survey) to further explore stakeholder opinions.

For the first qualitative phase, Woodnewton conducted 48 in-depth interviews, by video conferencing (for example MS Teams), and each discussion lasted approximately 40 to 45 minutes. Six of these participants also participated in a workshop held after the depth-interviews were conducted. In the second qualitative phase (post survey), Woodnewton conducted a further 10 interviews by video conferencing. These interviews were scheduled to last approximately 20 minutes. All interviews were conducted with the use of discussion guides that were developed by Woodnewton in collaboration with HMRC.

For the quantitative research, 224 stakeholders completed an online survey that was available in both English and Welsh. The survey was designed by Woodnewton in collaboration with HMRC and took approximately 11 minutes to complete.

1.4 Fieldwork

Qualitative interviews took place between 31 October 2023 and 30 January 2024 (phase 1) and 22 April and 3 May 2024 (phase 2).

Quantitative fieldwork ran from 21 March 2024 to 26 April 2024.

1.5 Sample

HMRC provided the sample for all stakeholders, except for parliamentarians. The latter included Members of Parliament (MPs), Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs), Members of the Senedd (MSs), and Members of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland (MLAs).

Sample sizes for stakeholder groups differed for numerous reasons. Firstly, due to differing numbers of stakeholders represented within each group. Secondly, due to varying response rates amongst the groups. Finally, due to the extent of engagement with HMRC within the 12 months preceding the survey.

The number of stakeholders taking part in the research is shown in the table below:

Stakeholder group	Qualitative sample	Quantitative sample
Agents	11	50
Border industry	5	3
Business or business representative organisation	7	76
Government agency	2	5
Legal	2	7
Parliamentarian	5	23
Professional body	17	32
Software developer	2	7
Voluntary or community sector	5	12
Other	2	9
Total	58	224

2.    Findings

2.1 Overall reputation

Most participants had positive views about HMRC. They saw it as an organisation that had many able and dedicated people carrying out a challenging task. They were particularly positive about HMRC’s efforts to reach out to stakeholders.

The stakeholders who took part in the research typically reported that their own perceptions of, and experiences of working with, HMRC were more positive than those they represent (for example, members of professional bodies). To these stakeholders, the difficulties HMRC faces and its commitment to improvement were more visible and so better understood. However, these stakeholders would not describe themselves as ‘advocates’ for HMRC, as their prime loyalty is to those they represent.

However, participants were also critical about aspects of HMRC’s work. There was a sense that HMRC’s performance, particularly on customer service, had fallen away in recent years and was often unacceptably poor. However, participants also recognised the legislative and financial constraints HMRC operates within. In addition, HMRC was being asked to do more with less – for example, in handling the increasing numbers of taxpayers required to complete annual self-assessment returns. In many cases, participants were at pains to make clear that HMRC was not unique in the challenges it faced.

The research also confirmed that there is considerable support among stakeholders for HMRC to improve and succeed, and a willingness to continue to contribute to its progress.

2.2 Trust and competency

HMRC’s culture was widely seen as professional and trustworthy, but sometimes too inward-looking. Individual HMRC officials were praised for their ability and openness. However, HMRC was said to be prone to taking away initial feedback on new rules or services and working on them in isolation. Consequently, participants felt that new initiatives could at times be harder to implement or unnecessarily burdensome, citing Research and Development Tax Credit as an example. Participants felt HMRC’s approach to the scheme (for example, a belief that it was not adequately resourced) did little to incentivise the Research and Development investment it was aiming to promote.

Participants felt the loss of many senior and experienced staff in recent years was a problem across HMRC. One consequence was that staff seemed less willing or able to provide technical clarifications or guidance without referring to policy colleagues, which added to already long delays. These concerns were shared particularly by businesses, agents and software suppliers.

Many participants commented that most HMRC staff did not have direct experience in running a business or managing complex tax affairs as a taxpayer. This made sustained engagement with stakeholders vital if tax regimes and systems were to work well in the real world. More understanding of the world outside HMRC would have a further benefit. For example, a few stakeholders reported occasions where HMRC staff seemed to assume that all taxpayers were intent of evading their obligations. Participants believed that the greater the confidence and understanding of the tax and business landscape amongst HMRC staff, the less this kind of behaviour is likely to occur.

Stakeholders commented that the high volume of inquiries, together with capacity challenges within HMRC on retaining existing staff and training new ones, were the reasons given for customer service to be generally rated poorly. Long delays and uncertainty in response times had very clear real-world costs. Many participants said that if HMRC could reduce these delays, it would make a contribution to the wider economy – reducing compliance costs and encouraging investment in the UK from overseas.

A further constraint on HMRC’s performance that was raised by stakeholders was the volume of change it is attempting to introduce, from policy to delivery. Individually, many of these initiatives were very welcome. However, stakeholders perceived HMRC as struggling to manage this workload internally, as well as to communicate or engage the outside world.

2.3 Engagement

Participants were broadly positive about engaging with HMRC. They said there was a good range of engagement channels and that formal consultations were generally well-managed. Participants would like to be involved much earlier in policy and service design and in implementation. HMRC was seen to be weaker on keeping stakeholders informed on how their input was being acted on, particularly with the design of new digital services. There was also some frustration where stakeholders felt they had to make the same points to different teams within HMRC.

Participants wanted to see guidance improved. The GOV.UK platform was not suitable for presenting complex tax information. Better guidance reduces the need to use customer services, and stakeholders reported encouraging signs of improvement in this space.

Participants also reported signs of improvement in engagement with them, for example on consultations and collaborative problem-solving, to balance weaker performance elsewhere. They would like to see the examples of this more collaborative or ‘co-design’ approach, such as Covid-19 employment support or Brexit transitional customs arrangements, become the norm.

2.4 Digital services

There was wide support for HMRC’s ambitions on digital transformation, but a fair amount of criticism about implementation Digital transformation was seen to have been driven more by HMRC’s own needs or ways of working than customer requirements, and the experience for taxpayers was consequently underwhelming.

Digital interaction was seen as appropriate and beneficial for the bulk of routine transactions, but not for resolving more complex questions. There was support for HMRC’s digital ambition, but a strong feeling HMRC could and should do more to encourage people to use digital services, not force them by removing or downgrading non-digital channels. Agents in particular felt that HMRC could do much more to incorporate their role into digital systems, so they could continue to help their clients comply with, at times, a highly complex tax system.

Despite these concerns, stakeholders were positive about disseminating information through their networks and to encourage the use of digital services where these worked well and benefitted taxpayers.