Corporate report

The Adjudicator's Office annual report 2026

Updated 13 July 2026

The Adjudicator’s Office annual report 2026

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 provides a free, impartial, and independent service and investigates all cases within its remit. We resolve individual cases but also highlight trends in both customer service and complaint handling. The Adjudicator will continue to push HMRC 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 explain their decisions clearly and with reference, where appropriate, to relevant rules, guidance or legislation. They should also show an understanding of individual customer circumstances. 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 HMRC/VOA complaints and Tier 2 Reviews for the WCS, without interference.

There are no targets for the number of cases upheld and we make all final decisions or reviews on cases with the approval or under the delegated authority of the Adjudicator. The Adjudicator is supported across two locations. Most of our people are specialist investigators, supported by specific leads for people matters, quality assurance, learning and development, stakeholder engagement and business planning.

Our Vision and Role

Our Vision

The Adjudicator’s Office vision is to work closely with the Departments to achieve the following positive outcomes:

• an efficient customer-focused complaint handling service
• high-quality, fair decisions
• insight which drives action to improve service for customers
• making the Adjudicator’s Office a great place to work and support our people to deliver our vision.

Our Role

Our work remains guided by our Service Level Agreements with our three key stakeholder organisations: HMRC, VOA and the Home Office for the WCS. The core purpose of the Adjudicator and the Adjudicator’s Office is to:

• resolve complaints by providing an accessible and flexible service and make fair, trusted and impartial decisions
• support and encourage effective resolution throughout the complaints handling process whilst being responsive to customer needs
• use insight and expertise to support our stakeholders to learn from complaints and improve services to customers. In relation to HMRC and the VOA, this will be in line with their Charter commitments.

The Adjudicator’s Foreword – Mike McMahon

Mike McMahon

Last year I spoke about opportunity. Opportunity to improve and build on the work, often out of sight, that I could see was being done in the Departments we work with – HMRC, VOA and the Home Office – to improve service for their customers. The challenge with that is the work must come to fruition, and things have to feel different. So, do they?

I have one vantage point but that will be different to someone else’s, especially if they feel they were on the wrong end of a decision by HMRC or did not get what they believe they should have under the Windrush Compensation Scheme. The reality of the work we see and do is that there is often someone who doesn’t agree with aspects of a decision we have made. So, I tend to judge progress by asking myself whether more people are receiving a better service compared to 12 months ago?

Turning to HMRC first, I think there has been improvement across the board, but that is perhaps not felt as strongly as it could be and with the impact I know HMRC would like. So why is that?

Speaking plainly, it takes a long time for change to really take hold in a department as vast as HMRC, with the level of complexity it deals with. But I do see that change happening.

HMRC’s digital transformation continues at pace, and HMRC appears on track to reach its challenging target of 90% of interactions being digital by 2029 – 2030. I also know – because I have been part of the conversations - that HMRC understands the importance of ensuring customers who cannot interact digitally are not left behind. My office will continue to challenge HMRC on that.

But more importantly for me – because technology can only take you so far – is the culture change I’m witnessing in HMRC. For its Chief Executive to speak of ‘kindness’ at Treasury Select Committee was, for me, a significant turning point. I can also see HMRC emphasising its Charter in ways I have not seen before, with a view to treating its customers fairly whilst ensuring tax is properly collected.

HMRC fulsomely responded to our published report on improving guidance. We now have a clear route into that area via a single point of contact for when we see guidance that is unclear; and changes are made quickly.

HMRC has not sought to block our messaging; rather it has encouraged us. For that reason, I am very hopeful that the shifting of the customer service dial will be marked by this time next year. The work is certainly happening.

The VOA has now been integrated into HMRC. This affords it opportunities to work with and learn from the improvement journey HMRC has been on. And that will go both ways. VOA significantly improved its complaint handling in recent years and there is a lot in the VOA’s practice that HMRC can take onboard.

But I don’t doubt the challenge its people and customers may feel as that integration process runs its course. I wish it well and thank VOA’s people for working with my office as productively as it always has in my time at the AO.

For the Home Office, it took on board the need to work through compensation claims as quickly as possible and added the resources needed to achieve that. My understanding now is that, as a rule, claimants are waiting for far less time for the review process to conclude than was the case 18 months ago. Our working relationship with the Home Office’s Windrush Compensation scheme team is strong. As with HMRC and the VOA, we are listened to and the Home Office takes action when we raise concerns about practice.

However, issues remain. It is still far too common for claimants to get to our office still unclear on what the scheme can, and perhaps more importantly, cannot do. Time after time claimants share their lives with us, invariably involving painful experiences. For example, it is a significant problem when claimants do not understand that impacts felt before the Immigration Act 1971 came into force on 1 January 1973 are not covered under the scheme. Or that the scheme does not compensate for racism, a feature of virtually every case we see.

I take my share of responsibility for that. It is incumbent on people like me to do more to ensure that it is well understood what the scheme can and cannot do. We ask a lot of claimants – sharing their stories can be incredibly difficult.

I will be working more closely with Windrush Advocacy groups and the Commissioner in the coming year to share any insight that we may have that is potentially beneficial to a group of people who deserve, if nothing else, clarity about what the scheme is for.

As the Home Office cleared more and more cases, our workload increased significantly. This meant claimants waited longer than they should have done at my office. I am pleased that we have put in significant effort to reduce wait times and forecast further reductions in how long customers wait for us to complete our review.

During the reporting year, I have had the opportunity to meet members of the Windrush community. It was as humbling an experience as I have had in my career. My team have always been dedicated to doing this work to the very best of our abilities. Hearing the stories I have heard, in person or through our casework, will not leave me. And whilst the scheme is by no means perfect, we will continue to review cases with care and compassion.

Finally, huge thanks to the people that make the Adjudicator’s Office what it is. In every role our people act with dedication and considerable skill. I have worked in the Ombudsman sector for a number of years, and I am proud of the quality of our casework. That comes from our hard work and passion for the job, but with a recognition that we will always look at what we can do better.

It has been a tough year operationally as Richard sets out below. But we have turned the corner thanks to the team we have. I am very grateful to them all.

Executive Summary – Richard Fowler, Head of Office

Richard Fowler

In my Executive Summary last year, I highlighted the high number of customers whose cases remained outstanding at the end of March 2025 and set out our priority to reach decisions in these cases as quickly as possible.

Many of our customers come to us after already completing a lengthy complaints process with HMRC or the Valuation Office Agency, or an application process through the Windrush Compensation Scheme. We are therefore committed to minimising any further delay wherever possible.

Over the course of 2025–26, we have made considerable progress in reducing our caseload. The number of HMRC and VOA customers waiting for a decision fell from 499 on 31 March 2025 to 360 on 31 March 2026, a reduction of 28%. We also reduced the number of customers with outstanding cases over four months old, from a peak of 196 in August 2025 to 59 at the end of the year.

The number of customers awaiting a Tier 2 review of their Windrush Compensation Scheme application has also fallen significantly in 2025-26, decreasing by more than half from 261 to 116.

However, the age profile of our caseload during the year has had an impact on our performance against our four-month service standard. In 2025–26, we completed 55% of cases within this timeframe, compared with 76% in 2024–25. We still have older cases to complete in 2026–27 and expect to receive a higher overall caseload next year due to a high number of outstanding complaints in HMRC. However, we anticipate reversing this trend and improving performance against our four-month service standard.

The volume and flow of cases we receive is a key factor in our ability to provide an efficient service to customers. We work closely with operational teams in HMRC and the Home Office to forecast future demand and, over the past year, we have strengthened our approach to intake projection. In relation to the Windrush Compensation Scheme, we worked with the Home Office to support the implementation of policy changes in January 2026 and to ensure that customers understood how these changes affected them.

On HMRC cases, in his foreword in the 2024 annual report the Adjudicator welcomed HMRC’s commitment to ending a recurring “peak and trough” cycle in complaint handling. This is the tendency for complaint volumes to increase, for recovery action to be taken before the cycle begins again. Unfortunately, during 2025–26 we have seen signs of this cycle returning, with the number of outstanding complaints rising and recovery action required in 2026.

This has had clear consequences for customers. First, longer waits for an HMRC response understandably led to frustration, with customers escalating complaints to the Adjudicator’s Office before HMRC has completed its process. In the final quarter from January to March, we received 395 of these premature complaints, the highest number we have recorded in a single quarter.

Second, uneven complaint flows increase pressure on our intake and risk further delays for customers once they do apply to us. While we continue to do everything we can to minimise these impacts, we also recommend that HMRC restates its commitment to ringfencing complaint handling resources to prevent backlogs from building up.

The appointment of Myrtle Lloyd as HMRC’s Chief Customer Officer in April 2025 was a positive step in strengthening the voice of the customer within the department. Building on this, we would encourage HMRC to further enhance its central oversight of complaints performance, recognising complaints as a vital source of customer insight.

Complaints resolution should not be treated as a secondary, reactive function. Instead, it must be a dynamic and proactive capability, enabling timely resolution for customers while also generating insight that drives improvement and helps identify emerging issues early.

Finally, I would like to thank everyone in the Adjudicator’s Office. Delivering operational improvements this year has required sustained effort and commitment, and I am grateful to colleagues across the office for their dedication and professionalism in supporting our customers.

Workload 2025 to 2026 data

HMRC Complaints Received by Quarter (excluding premature receipts)	2023 to 2024	2024 to 2025	2025 to 2026
Quarter 1	292	280	199
Quarter 2	288	388	232
Quarter 3	206	319	232
Quarter 4	256	286	283
Yearly Total	1,042	1,273	946

VOA Complaints Received by Quarter (excluding premature receipts)	2023 to 2024	2024 to 2025	2025 to 2026
Quarter 1	12	13	22
Quarter 2	12	16	13
Quarter 3	16	18	19
Quarter 4	18	15	12
Yearly Total	58	62	66

Home Office Cases Received by Quarter	2023 to 2024	2024 to 2025	2025 to 2026
Quarter 1	31	62	79
Quarter 2	36	143	84
Quarter 3	36	125	64
Quarter 4	34	123	80
Yearly Total	137	453	307

Total number of cases handled (HMRC, VOA, Home Office)	2023 to 2024	2024 to 2025	2025 to 2026
Cases on hand 1 April	347[footnote 1]	265[footnote 2]	760
New cases received	1,243	1,788	1,319
Cases resolved[footnote 3]	1,320	1,293	1,603
Cases on hand 31 March	270	760	476

Complaints on hand by department on 31 March 2026

The following table shows the breakdown of cases on hand on 31 March 2026 by department.

Department	Complaints on hand
HMRC	350
VOA	10
Home Office	116
Total	476

Outcomes of Cases Received

The following table shows the breakdown of the number of cases we investigated in 2025 to 2026 for HMRC, the VOA and the Home Office. The table also includes information on how many cases were withdrawn by the customer or were deemed out of remit i.e. we could not look at it.

Department	Cases Investigated	Withdrawn	Out of Remit
HMRC	898	14	165
VOA	53	1	20
Home Office	419	29	4
Total	1,370	44	189

Outcomes of Investigations Completed

The following table shows the split between the outcomes of our investigations in 2025 to 2026 for HMRC, the VOA and the Home Office.

Department	Not Upheld	Fully Upheld	Partially Upheld
HMRC	599	57	242
VOA	37	3	13
Home Office	255	27	137
Total	891	87	392

Premature Complaints

The following table shows the number of premature complaints (those that have not completed our stakeholders’ complaint process) that we have seen over the last three years for HMRC, the VOA and the Home Office.

Department	2023 to 2024	2024 to 2025	2025 to 2026
HMRC	1,150	863	1,198
VOA	8	13	40
Home Office	26	12	9
Total	1,184	888	1,247

Redress paid

Where appropriate, we recommend HMRC and the VOA pays 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 gives up recovery of a customer’s liability.

The table within the redress section below shows the sums recommended this year for HMRC cases.

Redress (£) 2025 to 2026

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

Category	HMRC	VOA	Total
Worry and distress	£17,005.00	£1,525.00	£18,530.00
Poor complaints handling	£18,535.00	£375.00	£18,910.00
Liability given up	£126,239.42	£210.00	£126,449.42
Reimbursement of costs	£32,759.58	-	£32,759.58
Financial loss	£33,373.45	-	£33,373.45
Total	£227,912.45	£2,110.00	£230,022.45

Adjudicator’s Office performance against our service standards

The following table shows how long it takes the Adjudicator’s Office to deal with complaints against HMRC, the VOA and review Home Office decisions on entitlement to compensation, under the Windrush Compensation Scheme. This data includes cases classified as out of the Adjudicator’s Office remit, as set out by our HMRC and VOA Service Level Agreement and our Home Office Service Level Agreement.

Service standard

Cases are resolved within 4 months of receipt.

2025 to 2026 performance

Time Period	Cases resolved within 4 months
April 2025 to March 2026	55% (1,577 cases met out of 2,850)

2024 to 2025 performance

Time Period	Cases resolved within 4 months
April 2024 to March 2025	76% (1,666 cases met out of 2,180)

HMRC update and case studies

Our HMRC casework is a microcosm of HMRC itself; complex, challenging and often emotive. The range of tax and benefits that HMRC covers is significant which means no two cases are the same. This places a significant onus on our people to be able to respond flexibly to the complaint in front of them.

We continue to see improvement at the strategic level within HMRC. There is a clear desire from senior leaders to place customer-centricity at the heart of what the department does. And we see examples of complaint handlers and those who support them, going the extra mile to resolve a problem. However, that can be challenging in an environment where process and policy is significant.

A case in point is the use of discretion. This is a difficult area. HMRC has discretion to act differently on individual cases, but in practice that ability is limited and subject to closely monitored guardrails, which is understandable given the size of both the department overall and the complaint function specifically. But we are seeing a cultural shift where the Charter is given significant prominence.

The cases below set out both what HMRC does well and where we think it can improve, with confidence that the positive trajectory we are seeing will continue to build.

Case Study 1, Decision: Fully Upheld

Business Area: Benefits, Family and Customs

This complaint is about a tax credits overpayment of £4,285 for the tax year 2017-18. The overpayment occurred when the customer phoned HMRC to report an income change and asked if they also needed to report an inheritance of £175,000 received by their partner.

HMRC treated the inheritance as property income and sent the customer an award notice which showed an overpayment of £4,285, which was the whole of the 2017-18 award.

When the customer complained about the overpayment in 2024, HMRC accepted it could have asked more questions regarding the inheritance, but it was too late to change the decision because the customer was out of time to dispute it.

Our investigation concluded that the customer was misadvised about the inheritance position and it should have had no impact on the tax credits claim. Therefore, the customer was being asked to pay back money she was entitled to in the first place.

We fully upheld the complaint and asked HMRC to cancel the overpayment debt and repay any money already recovered. We also asked HMRC to pay £250 redress for the worry and distress caused.

Case Study 2, Decision: Fully Upheld

Business Area: Benefits, Family and Customs

The customer had a joint tax credits claim. They separated from their partner in May 2011, but HMRC was not advised of the separation until May 2013. This created an overpayment.

In line with its guidance, HMRC sought to recover 50% of the overpayment from the customer and 50% from his ex-partner.

The customer told HMRC that exceptional circumstances – significant mental ill health - prevented them from informing it of the household breakdown sooner. HMRC decided the mental health issues started after the separation so exceptional circumstances could not apply and he would have to pay back 50% of the overpayment.

During our investigation we asked the customer for more details and evidence of their mental health issues. The information provided showed he had suffered bereavement shortly before the separation and his children had been taken into care shortly after.

We asked HMRC to look at the evidence provided and consider again if exceptional circumstances applied. HMRC agreed that they did.

We fully upheld the complaint and HMRC wrote off the customer’s 50% share of the overpayment.

Case Study 3, Decision: Fully Upheld

Business Area: PT Operations

The complaint concerned a payment of £59,000 made by the customer to purchase a Certificate of Tax Deposit (CTD) in 2016.

In 2022 when HMRC was asked about the CTD, they said they had not used the money to purchase a CTD and instead had returned the money to the customer by issuing a cheque. The customer was not expecting to receive a cheque so did not contact HMRC when it was not received.

During the complaints process HMRC said due to the time that had elapsed it could not check to see if the cheque had been cashed so it would not repay him the money.

Our investigation identified that the address the cheque had been sent to in 2016 was incomplete as it did not have a house name/number or road and the postcode was not a valid one.

We told HMRC that on the balance of probabilities we considered that the customer would not have received the cheque.

HMRC checked its records again and found evidence on a legacy spreadsheet which showed the cheque had not been cashed.

The complaint was upheld and HMRC returned the payment to the customer’s SA account.

Case Study 4, Decision: Partially Upheld

Business Area: PT Operations

The customer complained about the Student Loan repayment figure HMRC included as part of their SA calculation.

The customer disagreed with HMRC including a compensation payment received following an Employment Tribunal when it calculated what was due under a Student Loan. The customer said the legislation did not allow it to do so. They also said HMRC was blocking them from taking the matter to a tax tribunal.

We could not consider if HMRC had correctly calculated the amount of Student Loan repayment due as this is a matter that could be ultimately considered by a court or tribunal.

We found that HMRC missed several opportunities to identify that the customer was actually disagreeing with the correction HMRC had made to their tax return. As a result, it failed to act in accordance with the relevant legislation and did not revert their tax return back to the version held prior to its correction of it.

During our investigation, HMRC agreed to revert the customer’s tax return back to the previous version. This would give HMRC the opportunity to formally investigate the return if it wanted to, but any decision that money was due would give the customer the right to appeal it.

We partially upheld the complaint and asked HMRC to pay £150 redress for the worry and distress caused.

Case Study 5, Decision: Partially Upheld

Business Area: PT Operations

The customer wrote to HMRC to request a statutory instalment arrangement to pay their Capital Gains Tax liability.

It took HMRC 10 months to reply to their letter and explain that it could not accept the request. By this time, a significant amount of interest had accrued.

The customer paid the tax due but wrote to HMRC to object to the interest charged because they had not known the tax was due until HMRC responded to his request.

It took HMRC nine months to respond to their letter. HMRC told them if they wanted to object to the interest, they would need to phone or write to HMRC.

The customer complained to HMRC about the interest charged. The Tier 1 response explained that their case had been referred to their Interest Review Unit (IRU), and they would hear from them directly.

As the customer did not hear from the IRU, they escalated their complaint. HMRC’s Tier 2 response said the IRU had decided the interest was payable but did not provide the reasoning behind the decision.

We partially upheld the complaint. The IRU’s decision was correct, but HMRC made mistakes and caused unreasonable delays in the handling of the request to pay in instalments, the interest objection, and complaints. We asked HMRC to apologise and pay £200 in redress to add weight to its apology.

HMRC failed to meet its Charter standards. It was not responsive to the customer’s requests, did not help them understand their tax obligations and failed to resolve things first time.

Case Study 6, Decision: Not Upheld

Business Area: PT Operations

The customer’s mother died when they were seven years old and they were taken into care. The customer did not know they were the beneficiary of their mother’s pension. In 2024 the council paid a Death Grant to the customer of £27,326 which included a 45% tax of £12,296.

The law says if a payment of benefits when a pension scheme member dies is made within two years of the person’s death, then it can be made tax free.

The customer complained to HMRC that it was not possible for them to have claimed the Death Grant at the time because they were a child and not aware that they were entitled to it.

HMRC acknowledged that the customer’s personal circumstances had prevented them from claiming the death benefit within the two-year deadline, but the legislation was clear that the lump sum payment should be subject to a charge of 45%.

Our investigation found that HMRC had not done anything wrong. It simply received the money that the law said had to be paid. It was not HMRC’s decision to collect the money.

We spoke with HMRC at length about this case. HMRC must account for everything it does when it comes to money that is collected to fund the services we all use. It cannot simply pay back money it is legally obliged to have. But no-one we spoke to at HMRC thought the situation was very fair.

At our suggestion, HMRC took steps to at least mitigate the impact of the situation on the customer. It took the exceptional action of making an ex-gratia payment of £5,000, recognising the law was not intended for the circumstances the customer found themselves in.

Case Study 7, Decision: Partially Upheld

Business Area: Individuals and Small Business Compliance

This complaint is about the way HMRC handled a National Minimum Wage enquiry. The customer owns a holiday park.

HMRC opened the enquiry when it identified the customer provided accommodation to some holiday park workers for which they were charged.

The agent said HMRC’s mistakes and unacceptable delays caused stress and impacted the customer financially. They also said HMRC should have allowed the customer to self-correct and pay the arrears without issuing a formal notice.

We concluded that the guidance said it was up to the compliance officer to decide if self-correction was the most appropriate route to follow and they were not acting outside of that guidance when they decided it was not. We did not uphold this element of the complaint.

Our investigation identified that HMRC had made mistakes and caused delays. HMRC’s compliance officer missed promised dates, gave the customer short notice to check calculations, failed to provide workings to show how they had made the calculations and the calculations had contained errors. The compliance officer also wrote to two workers explaining they were owed arrears when they had already been paid them. This caused stress for the customer in dealing with enquiries from the two workers and trying to resolve the issue. We upheld this element of the complaint.

During the enquiry, the agent pointed out to HMRC that it had made a mistake in law on a formal notice and asked them to withdraw it. HMRC said the customer would need to file an appeal if they disagreed with it.

The customer engaged the services of legal counsel to help them prepare the appeal because one of the grounds for appeal was a point of law. When HMRC received the appeal, it withdrew the notice because it identified it had made a mistake with it.

We considered that HMRC made a mistake with the notice and its failure to withdraw it when the agent pointed out the error was the cause of the customer having to appeal it. It was unreasonable for HMRC to persist with its view as it knew it could not defend it at tribunal. We upheld this element of the complaint.

As redress we asked HMRC to pay the customer £200 for the worry and distress caused. We also asked it to reimburse reasonable professional costs incurred for both engaging an agent to help them resolve the issues caused by HMRC and for the cost of legal counsel in preparing the appeal.

HMRC’s Charter says HMRC will give the customer accurate, consistent, and clear information to help it meet its obligations. We considered it had failed to meet this standard in the handling of the compliance enquiry.

The Charter also says if HMRC make a mistake it will put it right as soon as possible. HMRC failed to meet this standard when it made a mistake with the notice but did not put it right when the error was pointed out.

Case Study 8, Decision: Not Upheld

Business Area: PT Operations

The customer complained that HMRC had miscalculated their tax code for several years which caused an underpayment of tax of approximately £9,500.

Our investigation found that HMRC wrote off the underpayments of tax for two years because the employer had not used the tax code HMRC had sent them.

We also identified that HMRC incorrectly carried forward underpayments to a later year. HMRC had apologised for this, corrected the calculations and applied discretion outside of its usual processes to cancel an underpayment of approximately £100.

The underpayment of tax of £9,500 occurred because when the customer started a second job, the new employer told HMRC that the customer had signed starter statement B to say it was their only job.

HMRC closed the record of the first employer and transferred the customer’s allowances to the new employer. As the customer was still working for the first employer this resulted in both employers applying her personal allowance.

HMRC sent the customer four tax code notices which no longer included the first employer. Coding notices ask the customer to contact HMRC if any of the information is incorrect.

HMRC’s decision on ESC A19 said that the first criteria of whether it caused the underpayment by failing to calculate the tax code correctly had not been met. We decided its decision was correct as it had acted on information received correctly by closing the first employer’s record and giving the tax code to the second one.

We did not uphold the complaint as we considered that HMRC had followed its guidance in calculating the tax code and had applied its discretion reasonably.

HMRC - First Permanent Secretary and Chief Executive, J P Marks

J P Marks

I welcome the Adjudicator’s Annual Report and the independent scrutiny of HMRC’s complaints handling and our delivery of the HMRC Charter. The report provides a clear and valuable perspective on how our decisions are experienced by customers, particularly where delay, complexity or error has affected outcomes. I am grateful to the Adjudicator and his team for their professional challenge and continued focus on fairness, transparency and trust.

The Adjudicator recognises areas where HMRC has made progress. While these improvements are not yet consistent for all customers, they nevertheless represent important steps forward. Alongside day-to-day service improvement, we continue to modernise the tax and customs system through our wider transformation programme, making it easier for customers to get things right and simpler to interact with us. This includes a continued focus on tailored support for customers who need extra help.

We value our constructive working relationship with the Adjudicator and the Adjudicator’s Office, which supports our shared objective of improving outcomes for customers. We also continue to play an active role in strengthening complaints handling across the Civil Service through HMRC’s Cross Government Complaints Champion role.

The report clearly sets out how peaks in complaint flows and upstream delays place pressure on the end-to-end system and adversely affect the customer journey. We recognise the impact this has on customers and on the Adjudicator’s Office. We will continue to work closely together on early engagement and joint demand planning to reduce avoidable escalation, improve predictability and support better outcomes.

We acknowledge the uneven pattern of progress during 2025 to 2026 and the impact that delay has on confidence and escalation. Our average response times remain higher than we expect of ourselves, at around 40 days for Tier 1 and over 55 days for Tier 2. Addressing the root causes of delay and securing sustainable improvement is a priority.

The Adjudicator’s findings reinforce the link between timeliness, trust and premature escalation, including the record levels seen January to March 2026. We are taking action to strengthen the resilience of our resourcing arrangements and prioritise capacity to reduce delays, improve timeliness and sustain performance, particularly during periods of peak demand.

We agree that complaints handling must be treated as a core capability, not a secondary activity. We are strengthening central oversight of complaints performance, undertaking a systemic review of complaints handling and making better use of complaint insight to drive improvement in services, guidance and communications. Stronger governance, clearer accountability and greater visibility of performance remain central to our approach.

As part of our complaints strategy, we are considering clearer service measures for timeliness and customer communication, including how we keep customers informed when delays occur. We continue to implement digital initiatives such as automated acknowledgements and proactive delay notifications by SMS and email to improve transparency, manage expectations and reduce the need for customers to progress chase.

In response to the Adjudicator’s insights, we have strengthened our focus on trust and fairness through a more consistent, customer centred approach led by our Chief Customer Officer and the Customer Experience Directorate. Our complaints learning routeway places greater emphasis on customer impact, meaningful apologies and redress that reflects the customer’s experience. This is reinforced through the HMRC Charter and the continued use of Compliance Professional Standards to support consistent and proportionate decision-making.

We have also taken steps to improve confidence and capability in the use of discretion. Targeted training supports investigators to make balanced and proportionate decisions, particularly where vulnerability is a factor. We have strengthened processes to identify and escalate complex or sensitive cases, and these actions are intended to deliver more consistent outcomes and strengthen public trust. But there is more to do.

Beyond complaints, we are taking action to improve fairness across the wider customer experience. This includes addressing aged compliance cases, reducing delay and improving how we communicate with customers during compliance checks, so expectations are clearer. We continue to strengthen support for customers who need extra help through our Extra Support Advisers.

The Adjudicator’s feedback continues to reinforce the importance of the HMRC Charter. In line with this, we are committed to delivering good customer experience. Where this does not happen, we aim to put things right quickly, learning from what went wrong and responding in a way that is fair, respectful and supportive. We continue to embed the Charter through user centred guidance, operational initiatives and a multiyear Charter delivery plan supported by stronger governance and oversight.

VOA update and case studies:

This is a critical time in the journey of the VOA as it joins HMRC. We see relatively few VOA cases which makes it difficult to draw general themes. However, we actively engage with VOA in terms of its complaint handling, and we have commented over the years in our annual reports how we have seen the VOA mature its approach to customer service. That remains evident in its complaint handling.

From next year, we will probably report on the VOA (now VO) as a directorate of HMRC. But it is likely that its distinct culture will remain for some time and we have encouraged the now VO to share its approach with HMRC because there is a lot it does very well.

During the reporting period though, system issues did cause problems for the VOA and that is reflected in the casework we saw. As that settles and as it is fully absorbed into HMRC, the opportunity to continue its customer-centric journey will hopefully remain core to the VO.

Case Study 1, Decision: Fully Upheld

The customer’s complaint was that the VOA had not reduced their property’s Council Tax Band despite providing them with supporting evidence. The customer also said that the VOA had not explained why.

We explained that we could not look at complaints about valuation decisions. We said that we would look at whether the VOA had provided the customer with an explanation of why they could not reduce the Council Tax Band.

The VOA’s guidance explains that if they cannot change a Council Tax Band following a review, they will tell the property owner why.

The VOA’s Charter sets out the level of service and standards of behaviour that customers should expect. The standard ‘Responsiveness’ explains that the VOA will fully answer a customer’s questions, will communicate its decisions, and will explain it’s reasoning.

Our investigation identified that the VOA’s decision letter sent to the customer after the banding review mostly contained general information regarding the Council Tax Banding process.

The letter did not specifically refer to the evidence they had considered or provide detailed information to explain how and why the property met the criteria to remain in the same band. We also found that no further explanations were offered during the VOA’s complaints process.

We upheld the complaint because we found that the VOA had not fully explained it’s decision that the property should remain in the same Council Tax Band. We asked the VOA to apologise and provide the customer with a more detailed explanation.

As a result of our investigation, the VOA reviewed the wording on their decision notices to see if they could be made clearer.

Case Study 2, Decision: Not Upheld

The complaint was about the VOA’s handling of the customer’s appeal against the Council Tax Banding for his property.

The customer considered that the VOA had failed to fully consider the evidence they had submitted when it decided not to uphold their appeal. The customer also said that the VOA failed to meet a deadline set by the Valuation Tribunal which left them disadvantaged during the hearing.

Our investigation identified the VOA delivered a poor level of service whilst dealing with the customer’s appeal. The customer was given unclear information about when they would receive a response to their challenge; the VOA failed to meet tribunal deadlines during the appeal process and delayed in responding to the customer’s emails.

However, during the complaints process the VOA had also identified the same issues. It apologised for the mistakes and said it had taken steps to learn from the failings.

We did not uphold the complaint because we considered the VOA had handled the complaints well and in line with their guidance.

We provided feedback to the VOA about how complaints can provide valuable insight into how the department operates and allows them to identify small improvements that could have a positive impact for multiple customers.

VOA - Chief Executive, Jonathan Russell

Jonathan Russell

The Valuation Office plays a vital role in supporting the collection of over £62 billion in Business Rates and Council Tax across England and Wales each year, directly supporting essential local public services.

I welcome the Adjudicator’s Annual Report, which recognises the sustained improvements we have made in complaint handling in recent years.

We remain committed to delivering fair and proportionate resolutions for our customers, guided by the Adjudicator’s approach to redress and ensuring this is consistently applied.

On 1 April, the Valuation Office became part of HMRC - an important step that creates a clear opportunity to build on our progress, share best practice, and strengthen how we use insight to drive continuous improvement.

The Adjudicator’s Office continues to provide valuable, constructive feedback, helping us to identify where we can further improve for our customers. It remains an important, independent element of our complaints process, and I am confident that, as part of HMRC, we will continue to build an open and collaborative relationship, underpinned by a shared commitment to learning and improving.

Home Office update and case studies

We are proud of the work we do as part of the WCS. And we believe we make a difference to the people for whom the scheme is intended. Set out below are a range of cases we have seen in the reporting year. You can view them in a number of ways. First, the transactional nature of the review process. The claimant said X, we responded Y.

What is perhaps missing though is the person behind each claim we see. In every case we consider, including the ones set out below, they are both unique and the same. Unique in the personal story the claimant tells us. The same in that every case we see concerns pain, racism and opportunity diminished.

It is irrelevant if we are going to return the case to the Home Office to review or not – the same care is taken with the stories we are told on every case we see. We know how hard this is for claimants to do.

This year we have committed to doing more when it comes to engaging with the Windrush community and that will continue. We have developed training for advocates to help them support others. The key to this learning is setting out both what the scheme can do and what it can’t. Too many people come to our office not appreciating what they have every reason to believe is not, in fact, true; that the racism and discrimination they suffered is not covered by the WCS. It is a scheme that is essentially narrow in its scope.

We also continue to work well with the Home Office and now the Windrush Commissioner, since he took up his post, to ensure that scheme works as well as it possibly can, within its limitations.

Operationally we saw a significant increase in the number of cases that came to us – our caseload doubled as the Home Office reduced its own caseload. We are pleased to say that following an intensive recovery plan, the team is now on track to complete all cases that come to us within our service standard of 120 days, from receipt to completion, and we aim to reduce this even further.

Case Study 1, Decision: Returned to the Home Office

The claimant’s mother entered the UK from Jamaica in 1960 prior to Jamaican independence in 1962. The claimant was born in the UK in 1964.

In 1973 the claimant’s entire family returned to Jamaica. They attempted to return to the UK in 1975 but were told they had been absent from the UK for too long.

Under the version of the WCS rules pre-January 2022, lawful status lapsing due to continuous absence of 2 or more years, which occurred prior to August 1988 was treated as the claimant still holding lawful status. As the claim was submitted prior to this date, it was considered under the old rules.

As a result of the claimant’s family being unable to return to the UK in 1975, they said they had to grow up in a dangerous neighbourhood, and their dreams of becoming a teacher were substantially set back, as educational opportunities in Jamaica were far less than the UK. Also, the teaching qualifications they obtained in Jamaica were not valid in the USA or UK when they left Jamaica as an adult, meaning they had to retrain.

The Home Office offered the claimant a Level 2 award of £20,000 under impact on life. The Home Office said however that it could not offer a Level 3 award of £30,000, because the impacts experienced occurred due to their mother’s lawful status lapsing as a result of being absent from the UK for more than 2 years.

Under the pre–January 2022 WCS rules however, the claimant’s mother’s lawful status should have been treated as not having lapsed. Due to this, we had concerns that the Home Office had failed to correctly assess the claim against the version of the WCS rules in place at the time the claim was submitted.

We asked the Home Office to review its decision and test the claimant’s impacts against the higher-level category, in line with the legacy version of the rules.

The Home Office reviewed its assessment of the claim, and after reconsidering its decision against the pre-January 2022 version of the rules, accepted the impacts met the criteria for a Level 3 award.

On this basis, it increased the award from £20,000 to £40,000.

Case Study 2, Decision: Partially Upheld

The claimant came to the UK from Grenada in 1970 when they were 10 years old as a Citizen of the UK and Colonies. In 1974 aged 14, Grenada gained independence. The claimant lost their CUKC citizenship and became a citizen of Grenada. This meant they were now a foreign national living in the UK. Despite legally holding lawful status due to being present and settled, the claimant had no proof of this.

In 2013 the claimant was convicted of a criminal offence, which resulted in a 22-month custodial sentence. Early on in the sentence, the claimant’s immigration status came under scrutiny, and the Home Office took steps to deport them from the UK. At the end of the sentence in 2015, rather than being released, the claimant was transferred to immigration detention for a period of around a year. They were then granted bail, but subject to strict requirements and conditions which heavily restricted their ability to lead a normal life or reintegrate with society. The claimant should never have been detained beyond the length of the original sentence.

The Home Office initially offered the claimant a Level 4 award of £70,000 under impact on life. It said it could not offer a Level 5 award of £100,000 as the claimant had not provided evidence to show the impact on their life was irreversible. We asked the Home Office to review its decision, as our view was based on the severity of the impacts and significant loss of liberty as a direct result of their status issues. The onus was on the Home Office to show that the claimant’s life had not been irreversibly altered, not on the claimant to show it had.

The Home Office accepted our recommendation and increased the award under Impact on life to £100,000.

Case Study 3, Decision: Partially Upheld

The Home Office offered the claimant £144,522 under loss of access to employment. This was due to being unable to progress job applications as a result of being unable to demonstrate lawful status.

The claimant’s representative however disputed the dates the Home Office used to calculate this award.

During our review, we acknowledged the circumstances of the claimant’s loss of access to employment were especially complex, as the employment issues had initially stemmed from allegations of unfair dismissal, and they had been involved in a lengthy employment tribunal, before subsequently being prevented from finding new employment due to being unable to demonstrate lawful status. The interaction between the circumstances of the claim, and the differences in criteria between general and actual awards for loss of access to employment made it difficult to establish when the period of loss began. This complexity in our view had resulted in key facts of the claim being overshadowed and not given fair consideration.

In support of the claim, the claimant provided a witness statement from a friend who had assisted them applying for jobs as the claimant wasn’t computer literate. The friend said they had started helping the claimant apply for jobs in September 2007. The Home Office however calculated the award from March 2008, which was the date DWP records show the claimant first applied for Jobseekers Allowance.

This later start date in the calculation of the award resulted in the claimant receiving a general award, rather than an actual award, due to the amount of time they were out of work prior to March 2008, meaning they did not satisfy the criteria for an actual award based on their previous earnings. We found that the Home Office had failed to place sufficient weight on the witness statement provided in support of the claim or take reasonable steps to rationalise why it did not accept this as sufficient evidence on which to base the start date of the award.

We asked the Home Office to review its assessment of this statement and its bearing on the calculation of the award, and the type of award it offered. The Home Office reviewed its decision and accepted that the claimant had been unable to progress job applications from September 2007 onwards. This not only meant the amount of time they were awarded for was extended by 7 months, but it also then satisfied the criteria for an actual award, based on their previous salary. This led to an uplift in award of £49,000.

Case Study 4, Decision: Partially Upheld

The claimant was born in Jamaica in 1959 and came to the UK in 1967. Throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s the claimant said their mother was very worried about being deported or being unable to re-enter the UK if they travelled abroad. The claimant said this meant they missed multiple family, school, and work trips.

The claimant attempted to apply for a British passport in the early 1970s, but this was unsuccessful because they were not a British citizen. They also applied for British Citizenship in 1983; however, this was unsuccessful due to a fee not being paid. The claimant applied again for citizenship in 1987 and became a British citizen in 1988.

The Home Office offered the claimant a Level 1 award of £10,000 under Impact on life for the worry they experienced. From reviewing the Home Office’s decision, we could not see that it had clearly tested the impacts against the criteria for a higher-level award or sufficiently rationalised why it was not satisfied the criteria for a higher-level award was met.

As the claimant said they experienced multiple impacts over a period of around 15 years, we asked the Home Office to review its decision and consider the duration and severity of the impacts experienced in the round against the criteria for a higher-level award.

The Home Office reviewed its assessment of the claim and accepted that the impact the claimant experienced met the criteria for a Level 2 award under impact on life. On this basis it increased the award offered to £20,000.

Case Study 5, Decision: Not Upheld

The claimant was born in Jamaica in 1926 and came to the UK in 1962 as Citizen of the UK and Colonies (CUKC). In 1962 Jamaica gained independence from the UK. As part of the Jamaican independence process, the claimant lost their CUKC citizenship and became a Jamaican citizen. The Home Office offered the claimant a Level 1 award of £10,000 in recognition of their being worried about being unable to demonstrate lawful status in the 1960s, which prevented them from travelling to their parents’ funeral in 1969.

The claimant applied for British citizenship in 1996 to resolve this worry.

Information within the Home Office’s internal files showed that the claimant had travelled outside the UK on their Jamaican passport multiple times throughout the 1990’s and had been able to re-enter the UK without any issue. The Home Office also did not explain or rationalise why it had offered an award for worry about travel which occurred prior to 1973, which is defined in the WCS as the start date for impacts which can be compensated under the WCS.

Due to this it was unclear to both our office, and the claimant’s estate, on what basis the award had been made, and meant his estate were unsure if the award was reasonable or not.

While we did not ask the Home Office to review its decision to offer an award, we provided feedback to the Home Office on the importance of providing clear and concise explanations of its assessment and decision-making process. While the Home Office had fundamentally been in our view generous in its decision to offer an award on this claim, its failure to clearly explain why the award had been offered caused confusion for the estate and contributed to the claim escalating.

Case Study 6, Decision: Not Upheld

The claimant came to the UK from Jamaica in 1960. Between 1960, when they entered the UK, up until 1983 when they were naturalised as a British citizen, the claimant said they experienced difficulties obtaining housing or finding regular employment. They said the housing or employment they were able to access was poor quality and adversely impacted their health long term.

The Home Office explained however that legislation requiring a person to demonstrate their immigration status for the purpose of employment or social housing was not introduced until 1996. And legislation requiring a person to demonstrate their immigration status for the purpose of renting privately was not introduced until 2014.

The Home Office told the claimant that it did not dispute the difficulties they had experienced, or the detrimental impact this had on them. But it also explained that as these events had occurred prior to the relevant legislation being introduced, which would have required them to demonstrate lawful status. So, these experiences had more likely than not occurred due to factors outside the scope of the WCS, such as racism, prejudice and discrimination.

Our office provided positive feedback to the Home Office about its clear and concise explanation, as well as the empathy it demonstrated in its response.

Home Office - Acting Permanent Secretary, Simon Ridley CB

Simon Ridley

Over the past 12 months, the Windrush Compensation Scheme has undergone significant reform to deliver faster, fairer compensation and stronger support for members of the Windrush generation. In June 2025, Reverend Clive Foster MBE was appointed as the UK’s first Windrush Commissioner, providing independent oversight and a dedicated voice for those affected.

Guided by the Commissioner’s recommendations and extensive feedback from communities, stakeholders, and claimants, we have strengthened the scheme to better reflect the lived experiences of those impacted. Compensation now covers financial losses linked to missed occupational and personal pension contributions where individuals were unable to work, as well as withdrawals from existing pensions made out of necessity.

We have also expanded employment-related compensation to account for wage growth and the challenges of re-entering the workforce after prolonged unemployment. The Immigration Fees category has been broadened to include all application costs, whether successful or not, ensuring no one is left out of pocket due to uncertainty around their lawful status.

To address concerns from communities about individuals passing away before receiving compensation, we are prioritising claims from individuals aged 75 and over. To ensure that people feel no pressure to accept an award that they would like to appeal we are offering advance payments of up to 75% of the total compensation amount while final decisions are under review.

These improvements have also been shaped by feedback from the Adjudicator’s Office, whose scrutiny and feedback have been instrumental in refining our processes and enhancing service delivery.

We also launched the Windrush Compensation Advocacy Support Fund in August 2025 to provide an injection of £1.5m grant funding to provide essential advocacy and support for individuals who need additional help with the Windrush Compensation Scheme application process. The first year concluded in March 2026 with over 110 claims being submitted having been supported by WCASF advocates. The second-year eligibility criteria widened the eligibility criteria of the fund to enable more grassroots organisations to apply.

While meaningful progress has been made across the Windrush Compensation Scheme, we recognise more must be done, particularly in improving awareness of what the scheme cannot cover. We remain firmly committed to continuous improvement and to handling every claim with sensitivity, respect, and care, ensuring each individual feels heard and supported.

2026 Update on Business Plan

Update on progress of Business Plan objectives

In 2024 we published our Business Plan for 2024 - 2027. We structured the Business Plan around the four high-level objectives in our vision:

1. An efficient customer-focused complaint handling service
2. High-quality, fair decisions
3. Insight which drives action to improve services for customers
4. Making the Adjudicator’s Office a great place to work and support our people to deliver our vision.

We have set out below our organisational achievements over the last year against the objectives set out in last year’s Business Plan.

Objective 1: An efficient customer-focused complaint handling service

We now publish quarterly our performance against service standards on GOV.UK. At the beginning of 2025-26 we had a high number of customers waiting for a decision in both our HMRC/ VOA and Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS) work.

We have made progress in reducing the number of customers waiting in 2025-26. In HMRC and VOA cases, the number awaiting a decision fell by nearly 28%, from 499 on 31 March 2025 to 360 on 31 March 2026.

On 31 March 2026, there were 116 WCS customers waiting for our decision, down by over a half from 261 on 31 March 2025.

Because we have been focused on completing the cases of customers waiting the longest, the percentage receiving a decision within four months has fallen this year from 76% in 2024-25 to 55% in 2025-26.

However, the average clearance times have been falling in the second half of 2025-26, a trend we aim to continue in 2026-27.

Casework productivity and output increased quarter on quarter in 2025-26, and we closed more cases than in the previous reporting period.

This year we also reviewed our case working processes and developed more distinct stages to monitor how we are doing as a case progresses.

Customer updates are managed through Investigation Managers and delivered by our Investigators. Where cases took longer than anticipated this year, we provided updates where possible to keep our customers informed.

Objective Two: High-quality, fair decisions

In 2025-26 we built on our progress in 2024-25 by enhancing focussed feedback on quality to individual investigators. We also introduced Learning & Development Panels for our investigators to provide wider feedback on their progress and identify opportunities for further progression.

As a result of these initiatives, we were able to increase levels of Delegated Authority amongst our existing investigators in the course of 2025-26, indicating the progress being made and providing opportunities to work more efficiently.

We have also developed a ‘digital’ approach for monitoring and feedback back on performance against our quality standards. This included the development of a series of Power BI dashboards to collate feedback to support both individual and organisational development.

In 2026-27 we will introduce quarterly reporting of quality standards at an organisational level, to drive continuous improvement via learning programmes.

Objective Three: Insight which drives action to improve services for customers

In 2025-26 we published our ‘Level 3’ insight report on HMRC’s guidance in October 2024, leading to HMRC implementing a single point of contact in both their guidance and policy teams to allow issues to be raised directly and swiftly.

We further enhanced our insight capability by recruiting two complaints and insight team members to further develop the identification and delivery of our insight, build stakeholder contact and improve services for customers in both HMRC and the Home Office.

In the course of the year, we worked in particular with compliance teams in HMRC to identify barriers to customer experience within compliance investigations, based on what we see in cases we review. We provided insight on HMRC’s Employer Error and ESC A19 guidance highlighting discrepancies between HMRC’s guidance and the published guidance, which had been leading to confusion for customers.

Aside from reducing the numbers of customers waiting for our decision, we also worked closely with the Home Office on the introduction of policy changes to the WCS in January 2026.

More widely we have met regularly with wider stakeholders learn from similar organisations and those also working with our stakeholders so that we can share perspectives and insight. In 2025-26 these have included the Ombudsman Association, the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman, DWP Independent Case Examiner, the Australian Tax Ombudsman, ICAEW and Low Incomes Tax Reform Group (LITRG).

In 2026-27, we plan further to develop our Insight Strategy, including how we can provide more tailored and timely insight to specific business areas in HMRC to drive swifter improvements for customers and identify issues early.

Objective Four: Making the Adjudicator’s Office a great place to work and support our people to deliver our vision

We recruited and inducted nine further investigators in 2025-26 to return us to required resource levels.

We have made progress in mapping key skills we need in the organisation and the work will be completed in the final year of the business plan. A retention plan for the growth of our talent has been agreed and will also be implemented this year. We have attended several events in Nottingham to promote the work of the Adjudicator’s Office to HMRC.

We moved to a single monthly Board meeting in 2025-26 which is providing effective oversight of key performance indicators and decision-making.

On culture, we are planning away days early in the new financial year for our senior leadership team, our managers and the full office to review our ways of working, culture and values.

In 2025-26 we updated our people plan based on response in the 2025 people survey and we continue engaging with colleagues across the office through regular “temperature check” surveys and all office dial-ins.

Complaints about our service

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

We apply the same impartial and professional approach when investigating complaints about our office as we do for complaints about HMRC/VOA and the Home Office.

Our GOV.UK website tells our customers how to raise concerns about our service, through our new electronic complaints form or by writing to us. During the period April 2025 to March 2026, we received 42 complaints about the level of service we provided. The main areas of complaint related to customers experiencing issues with emails sent from our encrypted mailbox, dissatisfaction with our communications to customers during the investigation of a complaint and delays.

We continue to use the insight we receive from complaints and are working with HMRC to resolve issues and to consider where we can 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, we can decide to provide a further response to clarify our decisions or recommendations and will address areas if we have made an error during our investigation. 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 2025 to March 2026, we received 5 Freedom of Information requests.

Subject Access Requests (SAR)

Under Article 15 of the UK General Data Protection Requirement (GDPR), we must provide customers with any personal data we hold if they request it. During the period April 2025 to March 2026, we received 27 Subject Access Requests.

Funding for the financial year

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 him 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 over which he adjudicates.

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

Our delegated budget from HMRC for 2025 to 2026 was £3.041m and expenditure from the same period £2.658m.

How we are organised

The Adjudicator

Mike McMahon

Head of Office

Richard Fowler

Deputy Head of Office

Sarah Doherty

Head of Operations

Clare Kirby

Head of Corporate Services

Mandy Fields

Insight and Technical Learning Lead

Andy Fowler

How to contact us

Online

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

Post   

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 reviews for the Home Office’s Windrush Compensation Scheme.

1. 22 case adjustment due to 25 cases being identified as premature and deducted from the total and 3 additional cases recorded after 31 March ↩

2. 5 case adjustment due to 7 cases being identified as premature and deducted from the total and 2 additional cases recorded after 31 March ↩

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