MSE News: Single parents sent 'threatening' letters demanding proof they live alone

missapril75

Cornucopia wrote: »

It's not really good enough to use data for purposes it was never intended for to make these kind of allegations.

What allegation?

We have still to see an example of these 'threatening' letters. We are told that they say they have evidence of someone else in the household.

People are placing too much on the use of the word evidence. Evidence is not proof. Evidence is something that has to be examined/investigated/whatever and then a decision is made.

The possibility of someone else at an address has surfaced and it's being investigated. It's normal.

Cornucopia

I don't like doing the definition thing, but sometimes it's necessary...

Evidence: (noun) The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

So do they have "evidence" or something a bit less substantive, a rumour maybe, or a database contradiction. Presumably if they had irrefutable evidence, they wouldn't be asking for information to refute it, would they?

This was discussed on BBC Money Box today...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b053rz5m

missapril75

Cornucopia wrote: »

I don't like doing the definition thing, but sometimes it's necessary...

Evidence: (noun) The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Exactly. INDICATING. Whether. As in one or the other. Not proof in itself.

You could also take this definition which is the subsequent one on the google results page yours came from.

A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment

Not proof.

FBaby

So do they have "evidence" or something a bit less substantive, a rumour maybe, or a database contradiction. Presumably if they had irrefutable evidence, they wouldn't be asking for information to refute it, would they?

Who cares? Why are people who believe are totally innocent so defensive? They receive funds from tax payers, tax payer's agencies just want to check they are entitled. Whether evidence is the correct word to use doesn't change the principle which is totally reasonable.

I receive a letter every year to from the council to confirm that I was a single occupier. All I had to do was tick a box but it did say that they could have for 'evidence' at any time. It never bothered me one bit, I accept that they are rules if I want something and that to get it I need to comply, end of.

I can understand being fed up with the task of having to gather the information. I am fed up that I am on my 5th phone call to sort out my taxes because I've put on an emergency code when I shouldn't have, but that's life. I can't help but wonder whether some people who got the letter hope that they are complying to the rules, but are not 100% confident that they are, hence the anxiety.

Cornucopia

missapril75 wrote: »

Exactly. INDICATING. Whether. As in one or the other. Not proof in itself.

You could also take this definition which is the subsequent one on the google results page yours came from.

A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment

Not proof.

I disagree with your interpretation, but it's helpful in terms of asking a simple question about what's going on here: to what extent do they have "evidence" when they say they have it?

The bottom line is that most people, I think, would expect a piece of "evidence" (a) to be truthful in itself and (b) to be relevant to the wider truth that it is evidence for.

The suspicion is that this is being run by Concentrix rather than one of the usual suspects like Capita is because Concentrix has marketing database expertise. If their "evidence" is an anomalous entry on a marketing database, then that would be wrong.

The BBC programme talks about these letters in terms of "fishing", and that would also be wrong.

Big organisations sometimes trial multiple versions of a letter to assist in selecting the one which produces the greatest response. I think that there may be a tendency in that kind of process to neglect the underlying purpose of official communications, which is to impart information to the public in a transparent, unemotive and unthreatening way. From what I've seen, they are failing on that.

Alevelintoldyouso

Instead of 'evidence' the word 'indications' could have been used in the letter from Concentrix.
The list of documents could have suggested Birth Certificates to prove relationship to relatives who occupy the same property. (Good luck with that one!)

If you are a single claimant. your permitted relatives are listed in the HMRC manual.

Last statistics reveal 3 million people between the ages of 18 and 35 occupy a property with other adults- mostly parents. Many will be receiving WTC as 33% of the working population are now claiming.
These living arrangements do result in Electoral Rolls revealing 'other adults' at same address without detailing relationships.

I find the idea that these checks will result in many fraud cases, ridiculous. The report issued by the Office Of National Statistics on a previous investigation blitz shows few fraud cases.

People who are so quick to judge in a negative way are scaremongering when in reality the letters issued by Concentrix are unnecessarily long and officious.

My advice is to find and read the manuals online - CCM and TCTM. You will have a better idea of what you are dealing with if HMRC write to you.

pmlindyloo

I have seen one of these letters and it seemed non threatening to me.

The problem is people read into things what they want to (a bit like on here sometimes!)

The letter I read stated facts and what would happen if the evidence was not produced.

Personally I find the word 'threatening' misleading. Too many people seem to be using the word as to suggest that it is a threat to punish or harm rather than an indication of something unpleasant.

This letter is no different IMHO to the part about the 'change of circumstances' clause usually found in benefit letters.

If anyone has a letter that they can scan it would be useful.

NYM

Voice of reason...

Cornucopia

pmlindyloo wrote: »

I have seen one of these letters and it seemed non threatening to me.

The problem is people read into things what they want to (a bit like on here sometimes!)

The letter I read stated facts and what would happen if the evidence was not produced.

Personally I find the word 'threatening' misleading. Too many people seem to be using the word as to suggest that it is a threat to punish or harm rather than an indication of something unpleasant.

This letter is no different IMHO to the part about the 'change of circumstances' clause usually found in benefit letters.

If anyone has a letter that they can scan it would be useful.

Yes, it would be good to see one of the letters.

To be fair, though, it was MSE who chose the word "threatening" in the thread title. I assume that they did that with good reason. If you look at the OP, it's a quote from various recipients who found it "threatening" and "upsetting". IIUC, there is a direct threat in these circumstances of a fine of up to £3000 for failure to provide the demanded documents in the specified timeframe. I don't know if/how that is expressed in the letters.

But unfortunately, the issue is not just about the wording of the letters, but the overall process.

I would say that the following questions need to be answered:-

1. Is this a new thing? How does the Concentrix approach differ from what HMRC used to do?

2. What sources of data are Concentrix using, and do they qualify for the use of the word "evidence", based on my definition of relevant information that is thought to be true and accurate?

3. Should there be overriding standards for official communications? These could be based on the ASA standards of Legal, Decent, Honest and Truthful. (How could any official agency object to that?)

4. To what extent is this a "fishing expedition"? I appreciate that in the world of big data, that's not a black and white question, but I think it behoves HMRC to be honest and state to the public and to claimants if the data techniques being used are more akin to trawling than using a rod & line.

Icequeen99

Cornucopia wrote: »

Yes, it would be good to see one of the letters.

To be fair, though, it was MSE who chose the word "threatening" in the thread title. I assume that they did that with good reason. If you look at the OP, it's a quote from various recipients who found it "threatening" and "upsetting". IIUC, there is a direct threat in these circumstances of a fine of up to £3000 for failure to provide the demanded documents in the specified timeframe. I don't know if/how that is expressed in the letters.

But unfortunately, the issue is not just about the wording of the letters, but the overall process.

I would say that the following questions need to be answered:-

1. Is this a new thing? How does the Concentrix approach differ from what HMRC used to do? No it isn't new at all, HMRC have done lots of these investigations over the last couple of years. More are being done as they have more people doing them. The Concentrix approach is exactly the same as the HMRC one and is covered by the same legislative powers. The letters are pretty much identical.

2. What sources of data are Concentrix using, and do they qualify for the use of the word "evidence", based on my definition of relevant information that is thought to be true and accurate? They use the same data sources as HMRC - mainly credit reference data. But they don't need concrete evidence under the Tax Credits Act to write out with these letters. Firstly, for ongoing claims they have the power to require any information in relation to the claim. So they can ask for all of those things in the letter for any reason under the Tax Credits Act - they don't need any sort of suspicion to do so. And if it isn't provided in 30 days then they have the power to suspend payments indefinitely.

Either before asking for information or after the information comes back, they can then choose to end the tax credits award if they have a 'reasonable belief' the award is wrong. They don't need defininitive proof. Of course, what they see as reasonable and what Tribunals would agree is reasonable will not be the same, and in some cases I have seen their evidence has not been enough to show they had reasonable belief. The burden of proof is on HMRC for in-year investigations to show the claim is wrong.

3. Should there be overriding standards for official communications? These could be based on the ASA standards of Legal, Decent, Honest and Truthful. (How could any official agency object to that?) There probably should be, but I am not sure why you think the letters don't comply with standards. I have seen both letters (HMRC and Concentrix) and neither are threatening - they ask for information and tell you what happens if you don't provide it. They need to do this because of the legislation.

4. To what extent is this a "fishing expedition"? I appreciate that in the world of big data, that's not a black and white question, but I think it behoves HMRC to be honest and state to the public and to claimants if the data techniques being used are more akin to trawling than using a rod & line.

There is probably an element of fishing in it. The problem is there are lots of people who are claiming as single people when they shouldn't be. The only thing HMRC can do is look at data that may suggest otherwise and then ask more questions. What would you suggest that they do instead?

I have answered some of those in red. My own opinion is that whilst the investigation techniques and the decisions made are not always the rights ones, the actual carrying out of the investigations makes sense. I can't see what else people expect HMRC to do, other than just believe what people put on the form. So whilst the process needs improving, I fully support the carrying out of it in the first place.

IQ