The Adjudicator's Office annual report 2021
Published 17 June 2021
© Crown copyright 2021
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-adjudicators-office-annual-report-2021/the-adjudicators-office-annual-report-2021
The Adjudicator’s Office annual report 2021
The role of the Adjudicator
The role of the Adjudicator was created in 1993 to introduce an independent tier of complaint handling for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Valuation Office Agency (VOA). Since December 2019 we have held an independent role in reviewing decisions made under the Home Office’s Windrush Compensation Scheme.
The Adjudicator provides a free, impartial, and independent service and investigates all complaints within her remit. We resolve individual complaints but also highlight trends in both customer service and complaint handling. This is why 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 (the departments) to apply skill and understanding to their complaint handling. Decisions should be clearly explained 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 all final decisions on cases are made with the approval or under the delegated authority of the Adjudicator.
During 2020 to 2021, the Adjudicator was supported by staff in two locations. Most of our staff are specialist investigators, supported by a business management team.
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
The COVID-19 pandemic has dominated the last year for the Adjudicator’s Office, as elsewhere. No area of our work has been unaffected. Despite that, we have maintained strong performance, resolving 1346 complaints during the year (a 25% increase on the previous year) and continue to build on the positive engagement in learning from complaints that we reported last year.
We left our offices in March 2020 and rapidly transitioned to providing our service remotely and mainly online. The disruption to our customer service was short term and we largely worked from our homes for the entire following year. Our workload changed almost overnight as HMRC switched resources to provide the support schemes for citizens most impacted financially by the national lockdown. Subsequently a large part of our workload was from customers complaining about the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) or the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme (SEISS). We provided feedback on complaint handling for those schemes in real time, which the department responded to rapidly to ensure improved experience for customers, many of whom were particularly distressed and vulnerable.
We received 1277 complaints for investigation about HMRC in the year, an increase of 46% from last year which is largely accounted for by complaints about the COVID-19 support schemes. We upheld 24% of the 1266 complaints that we investigated. This was a reduction from 35% from the previous year. The upheld rate for the COVID-19 complaints was lower than average as many of them were effectively challenges to the statutory eligibility criteria.
We received 46 complaints about the VOA, compared with 54 last year and upheld 7% of those we investigated. We began to receive requests for reviews of the Home Office’s decisions under the Windrush Compensation Scheme. We received 35 requests for reviews. Amendments to the underlying compensation policy in December 2020 resulted in several review applications being withdrawn and we have yet to see significant numbers of cases.
I can report continued progress within HMRC in engaging in learning from complaints. We have seen numerous examples of learning in action. As the year progressed the learning activity has become further reaching and more ambitious. Although initially slow to respond, HMRC conducted a comprehensive review in response to the report we presented in 2019 relating to policy formulation. HMRC has instigated a range of systemic changes to practice in response to feedback about complaints about the High Income Child Benefit Charge. Last year we reported an issue for customers transitioning prematurely from Tax Credit to Universal Credit because of mistake or poor advice. It took time to resolve the matter for the customers involved, but HMRC has since carried out a systematic review to identify learning from both the original incidents of service failure, and the time taken to reach satisfactory resolution.
Resolving these issues is not straightforward and can take time. Much of the momentum comes from the cross departmental Complaints Insight Board which provides a forum for discussion of issues and strategies to identify and address obstacles. The Complaints Insight Board is strengthened by colleagues from the VOA who share their own experience of improving responses to customer insight. Over the past year the Complaints Insight Board has addressed all historic outstanding aspects of our feedback and has moved onto a more proactive programme promoting transformational learning from customer insight and complaints. Recently, representatives from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been invited to attend the Complaints Insight Board. I support this, in a number of areas there is cross-over between HMRC and the DWP and a joined-up approach is a positive step for customers.
This progress is grounded in HMRC’s aspiration set out in the 10-year Tax Administration Strategy which launched last summer. They also launched a new Charter and are investing in a comprehensive strategic approach to bringing customer needs and voice into decision making and policy design. There is visible endorsement and support of the importance of learning from customer insight from senior leadership. From a customer perspective it may take time before many of these changes have an impact. HMRC acknowledges the work that is needed to make its aspiration an operational reality and particularly the complex nature of the structural and culture change needed to fully implement a new customer relationship model. Nevertheless, the progress made in the past year is significant, particularly given the obvious demands on HMRC of the pandemic and EU Exit.
In June 2020 Jane Brothwood, our Head of Office since 2016, left the Adjudicator’s Office. Jane played a huge role in modernising the Adjudicator’s Office. It is a testament to her legacy that we have been able to withstand the disruption of the pandemic so well. In September we welcomed Mike McMahon to the role. Mike brings decades of experience of working with complaints and a wealth of fresh ideas on learning from complaints.
Although our performance remains strong, the last year has not been easy for many of our team. Working from home, caring commitments, bereavement and illness have all taken a toll. I am humbled by the levels of kindness and support that my colleagues provide each other. I cannot thank them enough for their resilience and good humour and for the commitment that they have shown to our customers throughout this difficult time.
Helen Megarry
Head of Office - Mike McMahon
Mike McMahon
I joined the Adjudicator’s Office in September 2020. What I found, as I had anticipated, was a mature organisation with an ambitious programme already under way to transform the way we deal with complaints. The Adjudicator’s Office’s key function is to provide a high-quality complaint handling service for those customers who feel they have not been treated well. We must do that with appropriate pace while responding to the needs of all of our customers, both complainants and the departments.
In the face of significant challenge, in common with most individuals and businesses, we have achieved our core function extremely well. Our case volumes initially dipped then surged as the COVID-19 journey played out. At every step, my office responded with calm professionalism. This happened because of the culture that is fundamentally embedded within the Adjudicator’s Office.
What we do goes beyond individual complaints, we see the handling of complaints as a transformative activity that tells the story of the service people receive. Our engagement with our stakeholders has focused for a long time now on learning from complaints, rather than a merely transactional matter of fixing an individual problem - if there is a problem to fix.
Complaints are often an early warning of things going wrong. The evidence of that are the thematic papers Helen wrote for HMRC previously. We raised concerns in several areas: Tax Credits to Universal Credits, High Income Child Benefit Charge, and more generally around the implementation of policy by the departments. Despite initially being slow to act, we have seen significant activity by HMRC to understand what went wrong and how to learn lessons for the future. At every stage we have shared our insight to ensure great customer service is the starting point rather than something to be fixed down the line.
We have also ensured that our office is prepared for the years ahead. Our digital transformation continues at pace. We are fully migrated onto the Microsoft Office 365 platform, making communication internally and externally efficient and auditable.
We will start to build our new case management system in September. We argued effectively for the need for a system that is fit for purpose for the future, allowing us to track our caseloads effectively and to drill down into the learning we see in the complaints that come to us. Our online presence now allows our customers to complain directly to us and as of April 2021, 67% of complaints come to us via an online complaint form. We are also ensuring that our key online documents are translated into Welsh.
We have secured funding for an improved telephony system that means we can record our calls and retrieve telephone calls that are crucial to understanding the interactions between stakeholders and customers. Previously we were reliant on HMRC to provide these recordings to us. This further supports our independence and ensures an efficient and fair complaint process.
This year our transformational improvement will continue. Our engagement with our stakeholders is strong, crucial to ensuring outcomes for customers that are fair and resolving service problems at the earliest opportunity. We will be capitalising on that through continued engagement at all levels within the complaint journey. This means working with policy makers, frontline staff and everyone in between.
Within our office we are revitalising our project work to ensure that we support our people in all aspects of their role – from their wellbeing to learning and development. This is discussed later in our Annual Report. I am enormously proud of what the Adjudicator’s Office has achieved in the most challenging of years. I am indebted to my team, Helen and my predecessor Jane Brothwood for allowing me to step into an organisation that was able to face this year with professionalism, drive and ambition.
Mike McMahon
Business Plan – 2021 to 2023
We will shortly be publishing our Business Plan for the next three years. As with our last Business Plan, we will focus on four key themes:
-
Our People – We will develop and engage our people in order to benefit from their experience and potential
-
Our Customers - We will continually improve the service we provide our customers
-
Our Organisation - We will continue to transform the way we work, responding to the needs of our customers in order to become a more efficient and accountable organisation
-
Learning from Complaints - We will use our insight and expertise to help our stakeholders learn from complaints to improve services to customers
What is different this time is that we will report annually on the success of our plan as part of our Corporate Aims. Our Corporate Aims take the overarching Business Plan and set out what we will be doing under each theme and will provide measurable outcomes to hold us to account. Our annual Corporate Aims measures will be translated into actionable activities for our people when setting their objectives.
As part of this process, we have looked at the governance around our project and business as usual work. A key organisational aim is to become a learning organisation, we will provide development and opportunity to our people that ensures they have the skills needed to drive our key objectives and the opportunity to use them. Our projects will be overseen by our leadership team but will include our people at all grades. The aim is to move to a less hierarchical structure to one that focuses on skill over grade. We will continue to ensure that our work is of a high standard, mitigating the risk that we face and at pace with clear accountability.
Under each key theme we have developed projects that focus on driving our ambitions:
- learning from complaints
- wellbeing, diversity and inclusion
- digital tools and technology
- operational forecasting
- quality assurance
- learning and development
Where appropriate, we will be inviting our stakeholders to input into both what they need from us but also how they think we are doing. We see this as part of a maturing organisation. When we tell our stakeholders what they should do through our complaint handling, we should be prepared to listen to what people think we should be doing. We might not agree, but we should be robust enough to explain why, or change when we need to. We will also be engaging with customer-focused groups in a similar way, for example, the Ombudsman Association and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. More input into what we do and how we do it is good for us, our customers and the departments.
Learning from Complaints
In previous annual reports we have highlighted areas where improvements needed to be made, specifically:
- policy and process
- customer focus
- culture and behaviours
- complaint procedures
This year we have seen significant improvements in engagement around these issues and how that translates into meaningful action. The cross-department Complaints Insight Board has proven to be an effective forum for ensuring that progress is made in both complaints handling and customer service.
Policy and process
HMRC has responded to our thematic report in this area and acknowledged that the application of policy needs to be more customer focused. We understand that HMRC implements rather than creates policy and this can prove challenging. However, we found that not placing the customer at the heart of the process of policy implementation, can lead to poor service.
The evidence of improvements in this crucial area are shown in root and branch lessons learned activities. We have seen HMRC implement significant improvements in its approach to the High-Income Child Benefit Charge. Customer satisfaction is tracked as is the need for ongoing support for customers. We have seen evidence that satisfaction levels are good and clearer explanation of the process means fewer customers are querying what they need to do. It also seems that this has resulted in considerable cost savings.
We have seen similar positive outcomes for customers transferring from Tax Credits to Universal Credit and for people disadvantaged by the NHS Widening Access Training Scheme.
We are also part of regular operational meetings with stakeholders to understand how policy can be implemented more effectively. The Adjudicator liaises with HMRC at Director level to help ensure that the application of policy is fair and proportionate, and that operational staff embed the right approach at the outset.
Customer focus
We have seen renewed focus on fair outcomes for customers. This is demonstrated in simple things like referring to ‘customers’ rather than ‘taxpayers’ or ‘ratepayers’.
In November 2020 HMRC published its new Charter. We welcome this ongoing commitment to treating customers fairly and appreciate its simplicity. We are pleased that HMRC and the VOA are embracing development of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s Complaints Standards. We are working with our stakeholders to ensure that customer focus is embedded in operational activities.
We are also pleased that HMRC is in the process of developing a complaints strategy paper for the executive team. We have been involved in this process from the beginning and welcome HMRC’s engagement with us in this area.
Culture and behaviours
In the autumn of 2020, the Adjudicator attended senior leadership team meetings across HMRC to explain the benefit of learning from complaints. This was at the invitation and in partnership with our liaison contacts in HMRC.
As a result of those meetings, we have embarked on a process of linking up our office staff with their counterparts in complaint teams across HMRC to support learning. We are particularly pleased to have begun the process of improving learning at the first tier of the complaints process. We have tended to speak more regularly with the second tier – the area who deal with complaints prior to coming to us. We see the first tier as the front door for complaints and an opportunity to directly influence culture and behaviour through evidence-based activity.
Complaint procedures
This in part remains an area of concern. We have seen in the last financial year that 39% of HMRC and 13% of VOA cases came to us prematurely. This is too high. However, HMRC is actively working on this and we have seen evidence of them attempting to improve sign-posting for our mutual customers and to use consistent correspondence explaining how the process works. We will continue to work with HMRC to ensure that its interventions are effective. Having a process that is simple to use is crucial to ensuring fair access for customers.
This year has built on the encouraging signals we were seeing when we last reported. HMRC has demonstrated a clear commitment to improving customer service. We have seen similar encouraging activity at the VOA. However, good customer service and learning from complaints is a bar that needs to be continually raised and we will continue to hold the departments to that.
The complaint process - HMRC and 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, she will recommend what they need to do to put matters right. The Adjudicator will feedback lessons learnt to HMRC or the VOA where she thinks 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.
Our complaints process involves two steps:
Investigation
- we review information customers send us
- we carry out any necessary enquires
- we reach a decision on whether or not the department did anything wrong
Resolution
- we will make a formal decision on the complaint
- this will include recommendations if the Adjudicator decided 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 2020 to 2021
Total complaints received
The table below compares the number of complaints received by month for the years 2018 to 2019, 2019 to 2020, and 2020 to 2021. It highlights the increase of complaints resulting from the implementation of COVID-19 compensation schemes from June 2020 onwards.
Download a spreadsheet with the underlying data for this chart in an accessible format.
Number of complaints handled
Cases on hand at 31 March for the last three years
| Tax year | Cases on hand 31 March |
|---|---|
| 2020 to 2021 | 177[footnote 1] |
| 2019 to 2020 | 322 |
| 2018 to 2019 | 393 |
| Number of complaints handled | 2020 to 2021 | 2019 to 2020 | 2018 to 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cases on hand 31 March | 177[footnote 1] | 322 | 393 |
New cases for investigation
| Tax year | New cases for investigation |
|---|---|
| 2020 to 2021 | 1358 |
| 2019 to 2020 | 931 |
| 2018 to 2019 | 1043 |
| Number of complaints handled | 2020 to 2021 | 2019 to 2020 | 2018 to 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|
| New cases for investigation | 1358 | 931 | 1043 |
Cases resolved
| Tax year | Cases resolved |
|---|---|
| 2020 to 2021 | 1346 |
| 2019 to 2020 | 1078 |
| 2018 to 2019 | 1120 |
| Number of complaints handled | 2020 to 2021 | 2019 to 2020 | 2018 to 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cases resolved | 1346 | 1078 | 1120 |
Cases on hand 1 April
| Tax year | Cases on hand 1 April |
|---|---|
| 2020 to 2021 | 189 |
| 2019 to 2020 | 175 |
| 2018 to 2019 | 316 |
| Number of complaints handled | 2020 to 2021 | 2019 to 2020 | 2018 to 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cases on hand 1 April | 189 | 175 | 316 |
The tables above shows comparisons for 2018 to 2019, 2019 to 2020, and 2020 to 2021 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. It shows the marked improvement of our cases on hand and cases resolved figures, despite an increase in receipts.
Complaints on hand by department as at 31 March 2021
| Department | Cases on hand by department |
|---|---|
| HMRC | 176 |
| VOA | 2 |
| Home Office | 11 |
| Department | Complaints on hand |
|---|---|
| HMRC | 176 |
| VOA | 2 |
| Home Office | 11 |
The table above shows the breakdown of work on hand at 1 April 2021 by department. It shows over 93% of our customers’ complaints are about HMRC.
Outcomes
| Department | Cases investigated | Withdrawn | Out of remit |
|---|---|---|---|
| HMRC | 1266 | 12 | 202 |
| VOA | 54 | 0 | 31 |
| Home Office | 11 | 15 | 0 |
| Department | Cases investigated | Withdrawn | Out of remit |
|---|---|---|---|
| HMRC | 1266 | 12 | 202 |
| VOA | 54 | 0 | 31 |
| Home Office | 11 | 15 | 0 |
The “Outcomes” table shows the breakdown of the number of cases we investigated in 2020 to 2021 for HMRC, the VOA and the Home Office. A further breakdown shows how many of those cases were withdrawn and out of remit.
Outcomes of investigations
| Department | Not upheld | Fully upheld | Partially upheld |
|---|---|---|---|
| HMRC | 743 | 66 | 243 |
| VOA | 19 | 1 | 3 |
| Home Office | 10 | 1 | 0 |
| Department | Not upheld | Fully upheld | Partially upheld |
|---|---|---|---|
| HMRC | 743 | 66 | 243 |
| VOA | 19 | 1 | 3 |
| Home Office | 10 | 1 | 0 |
This table shows the split between the outcomes of our investigations in 2020 to 2021 for HMRC, the VOA and the Home Office.
Premature clearances
| Department | Premature Clearances |
|---|---|
| HMRC | 810 |
| VOA | 8 |
| Home Office | 5 |
| Department | Premature Clearances |
|---|---|
| HMRC | 810 |
| VOA | 8 |
| Home Office | 5 |
The table above shows the split between premature clearances 2020 to 2021 for HMRC, the VOA and the Home Office.
Redress (£)
| Department | Worry and distress | Poor complaints handling | Liability given up | Costs | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HMRC | 12,185 | 23,025 | 19,101 | 6,291 | 60,602 |
| VOA | 75 | 195 | 0 | 10 | 280 |
| Total | 12,260 | 23,220 | 19,101 | 6,301 | 60,882 |
| Department | Worry and distress | Poor complaints handling | Liability given up | Costs | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HMRC | 12,185 | 23,025 | 19,101 | 6,291 | 60,602 |
| VOA | 75 | 195 | 0 | 10 | 280 |
The table above shows the breakdown of the redress payments we recommended for HMRC and the VOA. This year redress payments were recommended under the headings ‘Worry and distress’, ‘Poor complaints handling’, ‘Liability given up’ and ‘Costs’.
Stakeholder Feedback
HMRC - First Permanent Secretary and Chief Executive Jim Harra
Jim Harra
As the Adjudicator has mentioned, this has been an unprecedented year with the COVID-19 pandemic also dominating the last year for HMRC. Throughout this time, we worked hard to keep our core services running alongside our COVID-19 financial support role, whilst also responding to real-time customer insight and feedback to continuously improve our service and shape our response to COVID-19 complaints. We are grateful for the valuable feedback received from the Adjudicator’s Office which the department responded to rapidly to ensure an improved experience for customers, many of whom were particularly distressed and vulnerable.
The new COVID-19 support schemes have seen HMRC pay out over £81 billion through our two main schemes - the Coronavirus Job Support Scheme has supported 11.5m jobs and the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme has seen 7.1m claims[footnote 2]. Given the scale, complaints against these schemes have added to our and the Adjudicators complaint numbers and have led to an increase in 2020 to 2021 but it is worth noting that the upheld rate for these complaints was lower than average.
We acknowledge that the proportion of complaints prematurely escalated to the Adjudicator has also increased and we will continue to work with the Adjudicator and her office to identify ways to resolve this issue to improve the customer experience.
In July 2020, HMRC published a new ten-year strategy, setting out the government’s proposals for delivering a trusted, modern tax system. Our strategy commits us to deliver our services against our new Charter commitments by establishing a tax system that helps people to get their tax right first time, supporting our most vulnerable customers by understanding their personal circumstances, whilst maintaining taxpayers trust and consent by operating in a fair way.
How we handle and respond to complaints is key to the delivery of the Charter and our collaborative work with the Adjudicator to embrace complaints insight as a learning opportunity supports this ambition. I am pleased that over the past year HMRC has addressed all the historic issues identified by the Adjudicator and taken several steps to respond effectively to the Adjudicator’s real-time feedback.
Our engagement with the Adjudicator is open and receptive to her views and challenge and I am pleased that we now have in place a good structure of meetings that supports collaboration and open challenge between both organisations from a working-level, through to senior level engagement. We recognise there is always more we can do and remain committed to learning from the real-time feedback Helen and her team provide, together with other sources of customer insight as we continue working towards improving all elements of our service, including process, customer communications and our internal culture.
HMRC published its formal response to the Adjudicator’s last Annual Report in November 2020 and is committed to provide a published response to this report by Autumn 2021.
Jim Harra
VOA - Interim Chief Executive Jonathan Russell
Jonathan Russell
I became interim VOA Chief Executive towards the end of March 2020, just as the pandemic resulted in the first lockdown. Like many other organisations, this created significant challenges as we had to balance delivering our services, at a critical time for many customers, while keeping our employees safe. It needed us to adapt our processes and change the way we operate.
I know the Adjudicator’s Office faced similar challenges, and I am grateful for the work they have delivered over the last year, which ultimately supports us in improving the service we deliver to our customers.
We continue to welcome the insight, learning and expertise the Adjudicator service provides us, and I can see we are much more actively taking this on board and considering what we can do to improve across the board and not just in relation to individual cases that might have been upheld.
Over the last year we have made changes to enhance our own complaint handling process and to focus more on the wider insight complaints and other customer contact provides us, so that we can consider changes or improvements to our service.
Jonathan Russell
Home Office - Permanent Secretary Matthew Rycroft CBE
Matthew Rycroft CBE
The Home Office greatly appreciates the valuable feedback and insight received from Helen Megarry and everyone at the Adjudicator’s Office. And, in particular, for their continued assistance with the independent review of decisions and complaints under the Windrush Compensation Scheme. This remains an essential part of the scheme and contributes to our commitment to learn the lessons from the Windrush scandal. We made significant changes to the Windrush Compensation Scheme in December 2020 to improve the service delivered to our customers and show that we are committed to listening to feedback on the scheme. I look forward to continuing to work with the Adjudicator’s Office as the scheme continues to mature.
Matthew Rycroft CBE
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 the Adjudicator resolved 1266 complaints from HMRC customers. Overall the number of complaints partially or fully upheld decreased to 24% (from 35%). This is mainly due to the increase in COVID-19 related cases where many issues in dispute arise in policy decisions over which we have no remit.
The Adjudicator continues to stress to HMRC that a focus on a target based numeric system will not encourage a forward-looking culture of learning from complaints. We welcome efforts to change HMRC’s complaints resolution measures to focus more on customer experience as a necessary condition for putting the customer at the heart of their work.
The table below shows the comparison of ‘Not upheld’, Partially upheld’, ‘Fully upheld’, ‘Out of remit’, and ‘Withdrawn’, resolutions for 2019 to 2020 and 2020 to 2021. It shows an increase in the proportion of not upheld cases and slight decrease in cases partially upheld in 2020 to 2021.
| Outcome | 2020 to 2021 | 2019 to 2020 |
|---|---|---|
| Not upheld | 743 | 459 |
| Partially upheld | 243 | 297 |
| Fully upheld | 66 | 61 |
| Out of remit | 202 | 207 |
| Withdrawn | 12 | 0 |
| Outcome | 2020 to 2021 | 2019 to 2020 |
|---|---|---|
| Not upheld | 743 | 459 |
| Partially upheld | 243 | 297 |
| Fully upheld | 66 | 61 |
| Out of remit | 202 | 207 |
| Withdrawn | 12 | 0 |
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 the recommendations that we made during the year.
Redress Paid
Where appropriate we recommend HMRC pay a monetary sum to customers in recognition of the poor level of service they received, and any relevant costs. The table below shows the sums recommended this year. It also shows the breakdown of redress payments we recommended HMRC pay to their customers. ‘Poor complaints handling’ made up the largest figure in 2020 to 2021 followed by ‘Worry and distress’ and’ Liability given up’.
| Redress Paid (£) | 2020 to 2021 |
|---|---|
| Worry and distress | 12,185 |
| Poor complaints handling | 23,025 |
| Liability given up | 19,101 |
| Financial loss | 0 |
| Costs | 6,921 |
| Total | 60,602 |
| Redress Paid (£) | 2020 to 2021 |
|---|---|
| Worry and distress | 12,185 |
| Poor complaints handling | 23,025 |
| Liability given up | 19,101 |
| Financial loss | 0 |
| Costs | 6,921 |
Case study 1: Misadvice on eligibility for COVID-19 SEISS
Issues
Mr A complained about HMRC’s decision that he was not eligible for a Self-Employed Income Support Scheme (SEISS) grant. He filed a Self-Assessment tax return (SATR) for 2018 to 2019 and subsequently applied for the SEISS grant. He asked HMRC to review his eligibility, saying he had made a mistake on his 2018 to 2019 SATR.
HMRC told Mr A that it was too late for him to amend his return himself, but that they would make amendments to correct his tax return so that they could process a SEISS claim. Mr A contacted HMRC several times and on each occasion, they told him he would be able to claim SEISS once they had corrected his return. After 4 months HMRC amended the SATR but concluded that Mr A was still ineligible for the grant because they could not consider the amendments for the purpose of SEISS eligibility.
HMRC acknowledged they had misadvised Mr A when they said that amending his tax return would change his eligibility and enable him to claim a SEISS grant.
Investigation
Mr A made a mistake in declaring interest from investment income on his tax return. The error resulted in his self-employed profits appearing to be less than his total recorded Pay As You Earn (PAYE) income for the 2018 to 2019 tax year, which meant that he did not qualify for the grant.
Although the information provided on the SATR was a mistake, this did not make any difference to HMRC’s decision on eligibility. The criteria for eligibility are clear and the information provided in the SATR is critical to the decision even if it is wrong. In reaching their SEISS eligibility decision HMRC could only consider amendments made before the specified cut-off date. As HMRC did not amend Mr A’s return until after that date, they could not consider them for the purpose of qualifying for SEISS.
Different HMRC advisors told Mr A, wrongly on seven separate occasions over several months, that HMRC could amend his tax return. The delays he experienced along with the standard of customer service received was unacceptable.
Decision and Feedback
HMRC missed several opportunities during their contact with Mr A to correct their mis-advice and in so doing provided the customer with a poor standard of customer service.
We upheld the complaint because of delays, poor customer service and poor complaints handling. We recommended that HMRC apologise and pay redress of £330.
This case was characteristic of many of the SEISS complaints that we considered. There was some confusion in handling the complaints (particularly in the early days of the Scheme where HMRC were still establishing process and policy but ultimately, the customer was not entitled to the grant.
Case study 2: Unclear explanation of COVID-19 SEISS decision
Issues
HMRC wrote to Mr B and asked him to send them a Self-Assessment tax return (SATR) for 2018 to 2019 tax year by 31 January 2020. When they did not receive Mr B’s return they charged him with a late filing penalty. Mr B submitted his tax return to HMRC on 11 May 2020, using the online service.
Mr B applied for a Self-Employed Income Support Scheme (SEISS) grant. HMRC said he was not entitled because he did not submit his SATR until after 23 April 2020, which was the final date for submission of the return for consideration under the scheme. Mr B accepted that he sent his 2018 to 2019 tax return after the SEISS time limit saying it was because he was caring for members of his family who were seriously ill. He disagreed with the decision that he was ineligible and asked HMRC to exercise discretion and pay him the SEISS grant, given the severe financial impact COVID-19 has caused him.
HMRC responded that they could not pay a grant to a customer who did not meet the qualifying conditions and they considered that Mr B had not sent previous returns to HMRC on time. Mr B engaged his MP in making representations to HMRC asking them to reconsider his SEISS application and take his personal circumstances into account. HMRC confirmed that they would not pay Mr B a grant.
Investigation
SEISS legislation is clear that to qualify the customer had to submit their SATR for 2018 to 2019 to HMRC by 23 April 2020. HMRC has no discretion to pay a SEISS grant if a customer does not meet the qualifying conditions. However, HMRC will consider exercising discretion where there are exceptional circumstances. One of which is if a ‘particular vulnerability’ prevented the customer sending HMRC their 2018 to 2019 SATR by 23 April 2020.
HMRC considered Mr B’s personal circumstances and decided that, given his compliance history there was insufficient evidence that Mr B’s family’s health problems were the only reason for his delay in sending his 2018 to 2019 tax return.
Decision and Feedback
HMRC’s decision to refuse to exercise discretion to the SEISS legislation was in line with their guidance. However, they did not make clear that they had taken Mr B’s wider circumstances into account in reaching their decision not to exercise discretion to pay a grant. They did not give a consistent or clear explanation of the reasons for their decision.
Sometimes, and for good reason, not all HMRC’s guidance is publicly available. However, this does not mean that they cannot explain their decisions clearly. We reminded them of the importance of giving customers clear, evidence-based explanations and reasons for their decisions. If customers cannot see that HMRC has considered the issues they think important in reaching a decision, they are more likely to challenge it.
Case study 3: Recognising the needs of a vulnerable customer applying for COVID-19 SEISS
Issues
Mrs C submitted her 2018 to 2019 Self-Assessment tax return (SATR) and included her self-employed income in the ‘Other taxable income’ section. In ‘any other information’ she explained that she had been unable to complete the ‘Self-employed income’ section. When Mrs C applied for a Self-Employed Income Support Scheme (SEISS) grant HMRC said she was ineligible because she had not completed the relevant section of her SATR and had not provided evidence that she received self-employed income.
Mrs C disagreed with the decision and said she could not complete the relevant section of her return because she experienced technical difficulties. As she was unable to make a SEISS claim online, she sent two requests for HMRC to review her eligibility. HMRC responded saying Mrs C was ineligible because, from the evidence on her SATR, she was not trading as self-employed during the 2018 to 2019 tax year.
When Mrs C complained, the case handler identified her as potentially vulnerable and in need of extra support. They referred the case for a senior review to reconsider her eligibility.
The review confirmed that Mrs C was not eligible. They pointed out that the error in submitting self-employed income as ‘other income’ in her tax return was Mrs C’s error, not HMRC’s. Despite Mrs C’s vulnerability they also noted that she had successfully submitted SATR’s in the past.
Investigation
We could not find any evidence that Mrs C contacted HMRC to report or seek advice about the technical difficulties she faced when completing her return.
When considering evidence of SEISS eligibility, HMRC use the information as the customer presents it in the SATR. In the event of mistake, they could only reconsider eligibility when the customer amended their return before the cut-off date. As that did not happen in this case, we did not uphold the complaint and did not ask HMRC to reconsider eligibility for SEISS.
Decision and Feedback
There was no evidence of the technical difficulties that the customer claimed impacted her claim. However, the case handler proactively identified potential vulnerability and ensured that the customer received additional support in pursuing her complaint. Although she was ultimately not eligible for SEISS, HMRC demonstrated a good level of customer service in this case.
Case study 4: Enquiry procedures and reimbursement of costs
Issues
Mr D complained about the way HMRC handled an enquiry into his 2011 to 2012 Self-Assessment tax return (SATR) and claim to loss relief. Section 9(a) (s9A) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 refers to the legislation that gives HMRC the power to investigate someone’s tax return. His complaint revolved around the impact and precedent of a Supreme Court ruling (Derry v HMRC in April 2019) relating to claims for loss relief, and how HMRC carried out their s9A enquiry process in that context.
In response to the ruling HMRC eventually agreed to repay the resulting overpayment from Mr D’s Self-Assessment. They acknowledged delays in acting in response to the ruling. Mr D wanted repayment of costs incurred and increased compensation.
Investigation
HMRC’s approach to reimbursement of costs during the complaint process was inconsistent and confusing.
Their refusal to reimburse costs until the date of the court decision in April 2019 was reasonable because HMRC were following what they interpreted to be the correct enquiry process before a precedent was set by the Court. From April 2019 onwards, HMRC were no longer carrying out an enquiry in line with their business-as-usual process and were in effect seeking to put right what the Derry v HMRC, (UKSC 2019) ruling found to be an error on their part.
It was not reasonable for Mr D to incur further costs because of the departments delay in putting right the impact of the incorrect interpretation of the enquiry process highlighted by the ruling. We recommended that HMRC reimburse any reasonable professional costs Mr D incurred from the date of the Supreme Court ruling.
Decision and Feedback
In response to our findings HMRC reviewed a sample of cases of customers potentially affected in the same way as Mr D. This indicated that they needed to carry out a wider review into all similar cases. HMRC reviewed all the cases they identified and followed our recommendation on payment of costs in all cases.
This was a very positive response to our findings. Rather than accept the recommendation in relation to the individual customer that complained to us, HMRC proactively identified and reimbursed the other customers affected.
Case study 5: A vulnerable COVID-19 SEISS customer with serious mental health issues
Issues
Mr E’s client submitted his Self-Assessment tax return (SATR) after the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme (SEISS) deadline of 23 April 2020. When he applied for SEISS, HMRC told him he was not eligible on that basis. Mr E explained that his client was suffering from significant mental health decline and was considered a suicide risk. He complained that HMRC failed to take his personal circumstances into account when they refused his application for SEISS.
Investigation
We found that HMRC did not consider the client’s mental health and the risk of suicide in coming to the decision that he did not qualify for a SEISS grant. There was no evidence that they considered his underlying health issues or that they may have caused delays in submission of the tax return. We did not find any evidence to show HMRC considered the information provided by medical professionals or mental health support services.
We recommended that HMRC refer the client’s application for a SEISS grant for review at a senior level and asked them to ensure they consider all circumstances when reviewing applications for SEISS grants, especially where customers refer to poor mental health. They conducted a review and having considered all the evidence decided that the client should be eligible for the grant.
Decision and Feedback
There was no audit trail to show how HMRC considered the evidence provided by Mr E or how they came to the decision that the evidence was insufficient to justify allowing the claim.
The failure to consider the client’s mental health problems at a senior level suggested lack of awareness and sensitivity in responding to customers with mental health problems.
Case study 6: Tax Credits and Full-Time Non-Advanced Education
Issues
Ms F complained on behalf of her mother Mrs N about an overpayment of Child Tax Credits (CTC) for the 2013 to 2014 tax year. Mrs N notified the Tax Credit Office (TCO) that her daughter left full-time non-advanced education (FTNAE) in January 2014 and the TCO issued an award notice to reflect that.
Following a further update from Mrs N her CTC was reinstated. However, when they received information from Mrs N during a compliance enquiry, the TCO ended her CTC entitlement from June 2013 until January 2014, leading to an overpayment.
Mrs N contacted the TCO seeking to reinstate her CTC payments and reporting changes in circumstances. She told the TCO that she had been hospitalised with a bipolar manic episode and asked them to reconsider the overpayment. She also provided evidence that Ms F was in FTNAE from 2012 until August 2015. HMRC explained to Mrs N that she was out of time to dispute the 2013 to 2014 overpayment.
Ms F complained that the TCO had not considered her mother’s mental health when reviewing her case and that they failed to provide support when told of her vulnerability. She had evidence that she was entitled to the CTC but was compromised in terms of understanding what was happening with her claim, and in her ability to challenge the overpayment at the time.
Investigation
When she challenged the decision, Mrs N was out of time to apply for Mandatory Reconsideration. Both the decision letter and Final Award Notice had informed her of the time limits for appeal.
HMRC did not consider Section 28 of the Tax Credits Act 2002, which allows them discretion to write off an overpayment. We asked HMRC to consider their discretion because the evidence showed that Ms F had been in FTNAE throughout the period in question. We considered that Mrs N’s mental health condition was likely to have impacted on her ability to dispute the overpayment and that she required extra support at the time of the overpayment. HMRC reviewed the complaint and decided to write off the 2013 to 2014 overpayment under the discretion provided by Section 28.
Decision and Feedback
HMRC were correct in saying that Mrs N’s Mandatory Reconsideration request was out of time. However, they should have done more to consider her vulnerability at an earlier stage, including their discretion under Section 28 either when she first applied for Mandatory Reconsideration or during their complaints process. Failure to do so indicated an adherence to process rather than considering the wider circumstances of the specific and potentially vulnerable customer and resulted in an unnecessarily protracted complaint process.
Case study 7: Tax Credit overpayment recovery
Issues
Mr G complained about the Tax Credit Office’s (TCO) recovery of a tax credit overpayment for 2017 to 2018 and 2018 to 2019. He said that his former partner added him to her tax credit claim without his knowledge and that the first he knew of the overpayment was when the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) started recovery from his Universal Credit claim.
Mr G was a part of a joint tax credit claim that ended when the relationship broke down in July 2018, resulting in an overpayment for two tax years. The TCO apportioned the debt between the two parties and in October 2018 transferred Mr G’s element of the debt to DWP for collection. When Mr G applied for Universal Credit (UC) in August 2019, DWP began to make deductions. Mr G claimed that this was the first he knew of the tax credit claim and raised a dispute with DWP but because he could not produce evidence that he did not know of the claim, recovery continued.
When Mr G contacted the TCO in February 2020 they told him that he was too late to challenge the overpayment. They agreed to consider his allegations of the fraudulent claim and asked him to provide evidence that he had no knowledge of the claim. Mr G explained that the claim was made five months after his relationship ended. He was hospitalised following domestic violence and subsequently moved out of the shared home and obtained a non-molestation order.
The TCO said that they did not have enough evidence to write off the overpayment. Mr G had a further exchange with the TCO in September 2020 and they told him to pursue his dispute with DWP. Eventually he involved his MP and was able to provide evidence that he was not living with his former partner at the time of the claim.
In October 2020 the TCO agreed to write-off the overpayment under exceptional circumstances and to ask DWP to end recovery. Mr G continued to receive letters from DWP about recovery of the overpayment.
Investigation
When they considered the complaint, HMRC agreed to write-off the overpayment based on exceptional circumstances, however they did not communicate with DWP who continued to recover the debt through a Direct Earnings Attachment.
Although Mr G explained to HMRC that he was a victim of domestic violence, they did not identify him as such or follow the appropriate guidance when communicating with him.
They did not help Mr G understand the information that they needed from him to review his dispute and missed opportunities to elicit the information from him that would support his claim. At times the tone and language used in the TCO’s responses implied that that Mr G was at fault in not reporting the end of a claim, which he knew nothing about.
Decision and Feedback
It took too long for the TCO to engage with Mr G’s circumstances. They kept repeating an explanation of the rules for apportioning debt on relationship breakdown rather than engaging with his personal circumstances and what he was trying to tell them. He clearly identified as a victim of domestic violence but that did not trigger the support under TCO guidance.
Mr G found himself in the seemingly impossible position of being asked for evidence that he knew nothing of the tax credit claim. That was compounded by an apparent lack of empathy or interest in his specific circumstances. Mr G related his experience to the standards set out in HMRC’s new customer Charter – and this was a clear example of HMRC failing to take his personal circumstances into account.
Case study 8: Impact of rapidly changing COVID-19 environment on Job Retention Scheme customers
Issues
HMRC refused Mr H’s application for a grant under the COVID-19 Job Retention Scheme (CJRS). They said that he was not eligible because he made his Real Time Information (RTI) submission after the cut-off date of 19 March 2020.
Mr H disagreed with the decision saying he was unable to submit his RTI return because HMRC failed to send a valid Pay As You Earn (PAYE) activation code on three occasions. He claimed that HMRC were responsible for the delays in processing his RTI submission.
Mr H applied online to set up a PAYE scheme for B Ltd on 21 February 2020. HMRC set up the scheme and issued an activation code. A customer cannot make an RTI submission before activating the account.
When B Ltd applied for a further activation code on 2 March, HMRC invalidated the initial code and issued a new one on 12 March. B Ltd tried to activate the account but used the initial invalid code and were unsuccessful. On 16 March they re-enrolled for PAYE and on 21 March HMRC sent a third activation code. Once again B Ltd used an invalid code to try to activate the account and when that failed, Mr H contacted HMRC. On 24 March HMRC bypassed the activation code process for B Ltd and activated the account. They made their first RTI submission on 28 March 2020.
When Mr H applied for the CJRS for the employees of B Ltd, HMRC informed him that he was ineligible because he made the RTI submission too late. Mr H made calls to HMRC to try to resolve the matter. They offered call backs on several occasions and eventually they registered his appeals for a review of the decision as a complaint. He ended up with three separate complaints registered under different reference numbers.
Investigation
When Mr H applied for re-enrolment on 16 March 2020 and HMRC issued the third activation code on 21 March 2020, it was too late for Mr H to meet the CJRS cut-off date of 19 March 2020. There was no dispute that Mr H tried to register the company and make a submission well before the cut-off date. HMRC set up the account and issued the activation code in good time. Mr H had significant problems in using the activation codes to make the RTI submission successfully and HMRC staff acted promptly when asked to re-issue the activation code.
We concluded that both sides acted within reasonable time scales to resolve the problems in setting up the PAYE account. However, by the time B Ltd re-enrolled on 16 March and HMRC issued the third activation code on 21 March, the deadline for submission had already passed. Under the circumstances B Ltd did not qualify for the CJRS and there were no grounds for HMRC to exercise any discretion.
Decision and Feedback
This complaint related to the early stages of the CJRS while processes were still developing, and it provides a good example of the difficulties in providing a complaints service in such a rapidly changing environment. At the time HMRC were receiving huge volumes of calls from distressed customers.
The call volumes were such that they could have recognised more quickly they would be unable to meet their own targets for call backs and could have managed Mr H’s expectations better. To compound matters, the administration of his complaints became muddled, and it took some time to bring his three separate complaints together. In the meantime, HMRC did not explain the complaints process to Mr H who became increasingly confused and frustrated.
Although we acknowledged the difficulties for HMRC of providing a customer focussed process during the initial stages of the CJRS, their customer service and complaint handling fell short in this case – increasing the obvious strain that Mr H was under and prolonging the uncertainty around his company’s entitlement to relief.
Case study 9: Provision of COVID-19 advice on claims to Tax Credits and Universal Credit
Issues
Mr I had to self-isolate for 14 days when a member of his family was ill with COVID-19. As he was unable to work, he applied for UC. He said his decision was based on information provided by the Prime Minister and Chancellor during a Government Daily Briefing in which they said that self-employed people could claim Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) through the Universal Credit (UC) process, if they could not work due to self-isolation.
During the application process Mr I received no warning that his tax credits would stop if he applied for UC. After completing the application, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) contacted him to finalise his claim. They advised him that SSP is not paid through UC and he would need to claim Employment Support Allowance (ESA). Mr I withdrew his UC claim immediately and the DWP adviser completed an ESA application on his behalf.
HMRC received notification from DWP to stop Mr I’s tax credit claim, because he had applied for UC. His application triggered Regulation 8 of the UC Transition Provisions Regulations 2014 which meant that HMRC stopped his tax credit award. The DWP also closed his UC claim.
Mr I complained about HMRC’s decision to end his tax credit claim saying that he followed advice given in a Government Daily Briefing. HMRC responded to the complaint saying there was no evidence of HMRC advising Mr I to make a UC claim and that HMRC’s website advises customers that when they apply for UC their tax credit award will end.
Investigation
HMRC’s decision to end the tax credit claim when Mr I applied for UC was in line with legislation. We did not find that HMRC misinformed Mr I, but did consider that the information provided in the Government announcement lacked important detail concerning the effect a UC claim would have on any existing benefits. At the start of the lockdown many customers faced a complete collapse of income and made decisions quickly, based on little information.
We asked HMRC to consider their policy in respect of customers who moved from tax credits to UC as a direct result of COVID-19 advice from official government sources and suffered financial loss as a result. We took the view that HMRC and DWP should take responsibility for the consequences on customers like Mr I in following, what he thought was official Government advice. Customers should not be able to fall through gaps in provision between different government departments.
HMRC (and DWP) should have acted promptly to ensure customers received clear messages about the consequence of applying for UC, before they accessed the application. Information should have been available to customers at points of access, so they were aware of the issue before making an UC application.
Decision and Feedback
HMRC considered our representations and concluded that as they had not misadvised him themselves, they did not have responsibility for the impact on Mr I of following Government advice. We accepted this as a policy position but noted that customers in Mr I’s position were left without any route to compensation for following Government advice at the outset of the pandemic which caused them further financial hardship.
Cases like this highlight the importance of Government department’s working together to make sure that customers do not fall through the gaps of their separate roles and responsibilities. Both HMRC and DWP promptly updated the information presented to customers applying to UC about the impact on other benefits.
VOA update and case studies
During 2020 to 2021 we received 46 new complaints. We resolved 54 cases in total and fully or partially upheld 7% of these.
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.
Of the cases we closed this year, most were about council tax and included concerns about the correct council tax banding of properties.
The table below shows the outcome of VOA cases investigated. It shows ‘Out of remit’ complaints continue to make up most cases that come to us.
| Outcome | 2020 to 2021 | 2019 to 2020 |
|---|---|---|
| Not upheld | 19 | 21 |
| Partially upheld | 3 | 3 |
| Fully upheld | 1 | 0 |
| Out of remit | 31 | 28 |
| Withdrawn | 0 | 0 |
| Outcome | 2020 to 2021 | 2019 to 2020 |
|---|---|---|
| Not upheld | 19 | 21 |
| Partially upheld | 3 | 3 |
| Fully upheld | 1 | 0 |
| Out of remit | 31 | 28 |
| Withdrawn | 0 | 0 |
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.
| Redress Paid (£) | 2020 to 2021 |
|---|---|
| Worry and distress | 75 |
| Poor complaints handling | 195 |
| Liability given up | 0 |
| Financial loss | 0 |
| Costs | 10 |
| Total | 280 |
| Redress Paid (£) | 2020 to 2021 |
|---|---|
| Worry and distress | 75 |
| Poor complaints handling | 195 |
| Liability given up | 0 |
| Financial loss | 0 |
| Costs | 10 |
The table above shows the redress recommended under each category for 2020 - 21.
The VOA accepted all the Adjudicator’s recommendations.
Case study 10: Mistakes in the check, challenge, appeal process
Issues
Mr J complained to us about the way that the VOA handled his complaint about removal of advertising rights from his property. Non-domestic property is assessed for rating unless specifically exempt with any advertising rights included in the rating list. If a customer proposes changes to the rateable value for their property, the VOA has a ‘check, challenge and appeal’ process.
In July 2018 Mr J submitted a check, asking for the rateable value to be deleted. The VOA contacted him in September 2018 requesting confirmation that he had removed advertising hoardings. Mr J provided photographs showing that the advertising boards were still in place but not in use. The VOA decided they could not change the rating until he physically removed the advertising board from the site.
Mr J submitted a challenge in November 2018. The VOA received a billing authority report in December 2018 confirming he had removed the advertising board and requesting that they delete the advertising right from the rating list with immediate effect. The VOA processed the request and removed the advertising right from the rating list.
Mr J’s challenge was still open when the VOA registered his complaint in May 2019. The VOA issued 4 tier one responses to Mr J’s complaint before they escalated it to tier two in October 2019. The VOA finally concluded that they had incorrectly interpreted the relevant legislation and upheld Mr J’s complaint. They apologised and offered redress. Mr J did not accept that the redress offered reflected his financial losses or the worry and distress caused by unreasonable delays.
Investigation
Mr J purchased the land in November 2017 and did not use the advertising hoarding from that date. This meant that the advertising right ceased to exist from the date of his purchase and Mr J did not need to remove the advertising board for the VOA to delete the advertising right from the rating list.
The VOA took 5 months to process the check and 13 months to process Mr J’s challenge. Although significant, these delays were not unreasonable as they completed both stages within their published timescales. However, the VOA made a mistake in handling Mr J’s request to delete the advertising right from the rating list and that resulted in a delay in taking the appropriate action in response to his request. The mistake during the check stage meant that Mr J had to continue unnecessarily to the challenge process.
We also found that the VOA failed to escalate Mr J’s complaint when asked, which led to further delays in resolving the complaint. We found the VOA failed to fully acknowledge and apologise for the inconvenience, worry and distress and delay caused by their mistake. We also found that the VOA had failed to consider properly the costs incurred by Mr J in having to remove the advertising board.
Decision and Feedback
The check, challenge and appeal process and the complaint process became entangled in this case. Because of a mistake during the check process the customer had to pursue a challenge. The complaint process should have identified the mistake earlier, but instead the customer’s complaint became stuck at tier one.
The VOA complaint process gives their complaints team flexibility to ensure that they consider and address new points raised by a customer at tier one before escalating to tier two. Although that flexibility is valuable, they need to take care not to create a barrier for customers trying to escalate their complaint. Had they escalated Mr J’s complaint in a timely way, resolution of this case would have been quicker, and his time and VOA’s resources would not have been wasted in following unnecessary process.
Case study 11: Delays in considering complaints
Issues
The VOA’s District Valuer Services (DVS) carries out a wide range of land and property valuations and valuation advice to public bodies. In October 2017 Shire Council (the Council) instructed the VOA on Mr K’s behalf to provide them with advice in respect of proposals for development of his historic property. The VOA provided a draft report in November 2017 and the Council sought clarification on several points before the VOA issued their final report.
Mr K disagreed with the changes made to the final report. In February 2020 he wrote to the VOA complaining that he did not have the chance to give input to the draft report and that this was detrimental to his plans to develop the property. In March 2020, the VOA decided, in agreement with the Council that Mr K’s complaint was a matter for them, rather than the VOA. They explained to Mr K that they were acting under the instructions of the Council and that he should contact them with his complaint.
Mr K disagreed and requested escalation of his complaint to Tier 2. This did not happen until May and he expressed further dissatisfaction with delays. The VOA issued their Tier 2 decision letter in June 2020, they did not uphold Mr K’s complaint.
Investigation
We could not consider Mr K’s complaint about the content of the report as that was not in our remit. However, we did find that under the VOA’s guidance the Council (as clients to the VOA) were entitled to seek clarification and the VOA were entitled to make changes to the draft report. The contractual agreement was between the VOA and the Council rather than Mr K, and the VOA’s obligation was to provide a report to the Council. We saw nothing to indicate that the VOA should have shared their draft report with Mr K. If there was an obligation for the Council to do so, that was a matter for them.
Under their complaints procedure, the VOA will consider a complaint if there is a sufficiently close connection between the complaint and the VOA’s actions. The VOA eventually concluded that they should investigate Mr K’s complaint, however the delay in reaching this decision was unreasonable. The VOA did not acknowledge that delay or the impact that it had on Mr K.
Decision and Feedback
The VOA’s delay in reaching a decision whether they could consider the complaint, itself became a problem. The customer repeatedly asked them to escalate his complaint and when they did not, he formed the view that the VOA were blocking access to their complaint process. Given the nature of the complaint the delays in reaching a remit decision were unreasonable.
The VOA made contradictory statements during their complaint handling which led Mr K to seek further explanations. When they did not give those explanations, he became increasingly frustrated and complained further.
This case provides an example of how poor complaint handling and lack of customer focus can exacerbate issues for a customer. There was no apparent merit in Mr K’s substantive complaint about the VOA, but their subsequent handling of the issue gave him justified grounds for grievance.
Home Office update
In 2019 we were asked to provide an independent review of decisions made under the Windrush Compensation Scheme. The government set up a fund to compensate people treated poorly as a result of decisions made by officials in relation to their immigration status.
The issues are clearly emotive. People found their lives significantly damaged by poor decision making, with impact in some cases on multiple generations or spanning several decades.
Our remit however is narrow, we can only consider if the rules relating to compensation have been fairly applied by the Home Office. We cannot decide if the rules are in themselves fair. Neither can we substitute our judgement for that of the Home Office in assessing appropriate compensation. We can recommend that the Home Office reconsider a decision taking into account our findings. We will though provide feedback to the Home Office on the service people have received when making a claim and the overall administration of decisions under the Scheme.
Total of new requests for review
| 2020 to 2021 | 2019 to 2020 |
|---|---|
| 35 | 4[footnote 3] |
| Home Office | New requests for review |
|---|---|
| 2020 to 2021 | 35 |
| 2019 to 2020 | 4[footnote 3] |
Outcomes of investigations
| Outcome | 2020 to 2021 | 2019 to 2020 |
|---|---|---|
| Not upheld | 10 | 1 |
| Partially upheld | 0 | 0 |
| Fully upheld | 1 | 0 |
| Out of remit | 0 | 1 |
| Withdrawn | 15 | 0 |
| Outcome | 2020 to 2021 | 2019 to 2020 |
|---|---|---|
| Not upheld | 10 | 1 |
| Partially upheld | 0 | 0 |
| Fully upheld | 1 | 0 |
| Out of remit | 0 | 1 |
| Withdrawn | 15 | 0 |
The table above shows the number of requests for review of Windrush Compensation Scheme decisions received. The start to the year was slow with momentum beginning to build during quarter 3.
In December 2020, the Home Secretary announced an enhanced package of compensation for victims of the scandal. Several customers withdrew their review requests on receiving renewed offers. Our assumption is that increased compensation will further reduce or at least not significantly increase the cases that come to us. Although we have remit to consider complaints about administration of the Windrush Compensation Scheme, we did not receive any.
Because of the low number of reviews we have considered, we have not provided case studies this year.
Helen reports to the Home Office’s External Windrush Compensation Scheme Oversight Board on a quarterly basis. She is also a member of the Administrative Justice Council’s Windrush Working Group.
Feedback about the Adjudicator’s Office
We always welcome feedback from customers as it helps us to review our processes and seek improvement.
We apply the same approach when investigating complaints about our office as for complaints about HMRC/VOA and the Home Office. Our GOV.UK website tells our customers how to raise concerns about our service. This can be done through our new electronic complaints form, or our leaflet ‘Complaints about our service’ is available on request.
During the year we received 13 complaints about the level of service we provided. The areas of complaint, in the main were about delays in the investigation process and lack of clarity in respect of our processes and in our communications.
We were recently contacted to highlight that customers cannot contact our office in the Welsh language via our website. We are now acting on this feedback and are in the process of adding Welsh language translations to key content.
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.
Equality Monitoring
For the current year we are unable to report figures relating to the equality monitoring of our customers. The number of returned questionnaires in the last 12 months was less than ten which is insufficient to provide robust data. We will review our processes to improve accessibility and encourage greater participation in the collection of diversity and equality data.
How we are organised
The Adjudicator
Head of Office
Complaints Investigation Manager
Business Manager
Finance 2020 to 2021
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 Ministry of Justice pay scales for judicial salaries Group 6.2.
Our delegated budget for 2020 to 2021 was £2.487m[footnote 4] and expenditure for the same period £2.471m.
How to contact us
Online
Post
The Adjudicator’s Office
PO Box 10280
Nottingham
NG2 9PF
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 Windrush Compensation Scheme.
© Crown Copyright
-
In August 2020 we identified two additional 2019 to 2020 cases (figure adjusted to 177). This has been noted as an in-year reconciliation of the reported 2020 figure. ↩ ↩2
-
Figures quoted are correct as of 2/6/2021. ↩
-
The Adjudicators Office took on the role of independent reviewer of Windrush decisions in December 2019. ↩ ↩2
-
Does not include a provision for the additional costs incurred in the Adjudicators Office as a result of a pay-rise under HMRC’s Pay and Contract Reform. ↩