Payment of NI rebates

My point was that it genuinely is 'hit and miss'.

A few years ago an employer made a lump sum payment of 'back pay'. But this happened under a different payroll reference than the earlier pay received [effectively two separate periods of employment in the same year with the same company - so separate P14s required] I also had a second job elsewhere - so a Third P14 there. They also allocated that payment wrongly over a single time period [one week] instead of the period over which it was earned. And this meant it only partly qualified for rebate [i.e. not all of it] and more NI was taken than needed to be

Now two of the P14s were evidently recorded onto NIRS2 during the period you mention - because I got a rebate [which may have been in two payments - I can check] BUT getting the NICO people to to put right the third bit mentioned - to obtain credit took from Autumn 2001 to Winter 2002/03 - and this for earnings taking place in 2000-01. To get this paid I had to repeatedly chase up the eployer's payroll - then their Inland Revenue office - and finally NICO - and this was just one part payment for one tax year.

For EACH of the first 4 years of contracting out - the wrong amounts of rebate were paid - essentially due to failiures to record some earnings each time. The system is supposed to be efficient - but clearly was not.

A better system would have the insurer or the individual entering a claim for a rebate - supported by the necessary proofs of earning - P45/P60 - which could therefore go in within 2 months of the end of the tax year. Much stress is placed on the 'KEEP IT' aspect of certificates of pay and earnings so it baffles me why these would not be considered 'reliable' as evidence in the way I suggest?

If I can stray off-topic a bit further: The change to 'direct payment' of mortgage interest to recipients of Income Support in the early 90s was asked for by the lenders because a few people [anecdotally] didn't keep up payments on their mortgages whilst these payments were being included in their allowances and paid to them. Rather than study the 'problem' - or ask whether the fact that these mortgage interest payments were limited to only 50% for the first number of months had anything to do with it - the govt of the day made ALL homebuyers subject to 'direct payment'. Result: great for the lenders but not so great for the borrowers because they could no longer 'see' [or know] when payments were being made into their mortgage accounts OR how much this left them required to pay for themselves OR when? [NOTE: these payments were set at 50% for the first 16 weeks, and they got paid on 4 weekly cycle - whereas mortgage lenders required payments monthly. Thus the payments were anyway out of 'sync' and borrowers had to make top up payments at odd times - all whilst being on fixed weekly payments.]

My point there is that a system that puports to run smoothly on auto [like the NI rebate payments] is in reality - well 'cr*p'! A better system would deliver more certain and regular payment of rebates were it based on 'claiming' rather than the 'universal' notion we have at present.

There is a curious 'inversion' here with the dbate raging around the basic state pension - namely that 'means-testing' is being derided in part because it only works if pensioners can be persuaded to submit claims - and they are never going to do so at 100%. However if the insurer did the 'chasing up/submitting' then I am sure this would work better than what we have now.

[A bit academic really, since the rebates probably won't surivive the next big shake up in state pensions]

But thanks anyway for those clarifications - Like you say 'nothing better to do!' ;D