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

pmlindyloo

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Thanks nicki. There is nothing threatening in that letter.

MSE Paloma, what did you see that made you think the letter was threatening?

From the letter Nicki was kind enough to type out and post

"We need to talk to you about whether you are living with a partner"

What's threatening in that?

"You claim tax credits as a single person, but we have evidence that there may be another adult living with you.If you're married, in a civil partnership, or usually live with a partner, you must make a joint claim unless you are legally separated, or your separation is likely to be permanent. "

The word "may" is used. Why is that threatening?

They were even kind enough to embold the section that gave the date the claimant needs to respond by, before their benefits stopped.

Was it that that timeline that you found threatening? From what I read on these boards, all benefit requests have a timeline for a response, or the benefit stops. Tax Credits is a benefit too. If claimants still kept getting their benefits even though they chose not to respond to a letter from a benefits office, what incentive would there be for them to respond to their benefit checks?

As said on this thread, this letter is just a benefit check and is nothing new.

To be fair to MSA Paloma they were quoting what other people had said on receiving the letter and the word was put in inverted commas to denote that there may be some issue with the use of the word threatening (at least that's how I interpreted it )

MissMoneypenny

pmlindyloo wrote: »

To be fair to MSA Paloma they were quoting what other people had said on receiving the letter and the word was put in inverted commas to denote that there may be some issue with the use of the word threatening (at least that's how I interpreted it )

Really? Why would MSE start a thread entitled Single parents sent 'threatening' letters demanding proof they live alone if they haven't even read the letter; inverted commas or not?

Posters on here who have seen this letter, have said that they couldn't see anything 'threatening' in the letter and I agree now that a letter has been posted on here for us all to read. It's merely a benefits check. It's nothing new.

As I said above, I received one like this about 10 years ago from the council about my single person discount Council Tax, because a council data check showed my student son linked to my address. Their letter didn't even use the word "may" and said something like "we have evidence that". I too also was given a date to respond by or my single person discount would end. I didn't see any problem with them checking. If it had been someone falsely using my address to get credit, then I would have been thanking the council.

missapril75

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

There is nothing threatening in that letter.

I agree.

I can imagine some may consider
"If: - you have given us wrong information or made an error, we will consider charging you a penalty - see the enclosed leaflet 'Tax credits penalties'
- We have paid you too much tax credits, you will have to pay this back to us."
as a little threatening but there's an IF right at the beginning and then only a 'consider' later. It's also informative.

There is so much conciliatory language though.
"We would welcome your cooperation" There's even an offer to reduce any overpayment that may have arisen.

I think it could have been worded differently and maybe shortened, with a separate "information" sheet about potential consequences, but I wouldn't even describe it as 'blunt let alone threatening.

Cornucopia

The letter is unpleasant. I can see how a person (particularly a vulnerable person) may find it threatening.

It certainly uses language that does not appear to fit the standard of being clear, unemotive information that I would prefer to see in official communications.

I would say to those posters who aren't bothered by this kind of thing: don't worry, your time will come. See how you feel about it when it's addressed to you.

benniebert

That letter looks to me like a total 'fishing' expedition. Let's be honest if HMRC had any real hard evidence that contradicts any claim of this nature, the first thing that they would do is suspend all future tax credit payments. This company working for HMRC may have some inconsistent information which generally could be cleared by them without the need to intimate that someone may be committing a criminal act of benefit fraud. There is enough data out there that is in the hands on the various government departments already that should be used to test the inconsistencies before resorting to this trawling activity.


I presume that they are working on the basis that if only one person is caught out of maybe 500 or more innocent claimants it is a worthwhile scheme? Why don't they go the whole hog and demand 12 month bank statements and all of the other information from EVERY benefit claimant (HB, CTS, TC, CTC, DWP etc) EVERY year? That way they will catch everyone that is fiddling the system - but at what cost?

tomtontom

Cornucopia wrote: »

The letter is unpleasant. I can see how a person (particularly a vulnerable person) may find it threatening.

It certainly uses language that does not appear to fit the standard of being clear, unemotive information that I would prefer to see in official communications.

I would say to those posters who aren't bothered by this kind of thing: don't worry, your time will come. See how you feel about it when it's addressed to you.

Can you elaborate on what you find threatening or unclear in the letter? The letter is lengthy but I can't see how it could be any clearer.

As for your last comment, I have claimed benefits in the past and would have no issue with those paying me checking my entitlement. I actually think entitlement should be checked far more thoroughly for all claimants.

NYM

missapril75 wrote: »

I agree.

I can imagine some may consider
"If: - you have given us wrong information or made an error, we will consider charging you a penalty - see the enclosed leaflet 'Tax credits penalties'
- We have paid you too much tax credits, you will have to pay this back to us."
as a little threatening but there's an IF right at the beginning and then only a 'consider' later. It's also informative.

There is so much conciliatory language though.
"We would welcome your cooperation" There's even an offer to reduce any overpayment that may have arisen.

I think it could have been worded differently and maybe shortened, with a separate "information" sheet about potential consequences, but I wouldn't even describe it as 'blunt let alone threatening.

Well said

Cornucopia

It's partly the length that is at issue - it's way longer than it needs to be. Presumably there is a reason for that.

I would find the concept of demanding information and making penalties "clear" more appropriate at the outset of the claim.

"evidence" - I think it's pretty clear there is no evidence as such. Maybe there's a mismatch between databases - maybe not even that. It also makes no sense when repudiated by "may". That's a very typical device in these kinds of letters.

I suspect that documents list is probably a general list that is way beyond what is justified, and the Law is quite specific on that.

If it were me writing it, I'd probably keep it, and the process, much simpler and more legally compliant....

Dear xxxxxx

We are writing to you about your claim for WTC. Although you successfully completed the initial assessment and were approved to receive this benefit, an issue has arisen with your claim.

To help us resolve this issue, you must phone us on ...... before xx/xx/xxxx. During that call, we may ask for further supporting information for your claim.

Unfortunately, if you do not call us, your claim may be in jeopardy.

Yours HMRC.

chanz4

I received the child care version, nothing to hide just made a bigger job for the nursery. Would be intresting under the foi how much this company is been paid and why hmrc are not capable of doing it.


They demand the child care id again even as they already have it

benniebert

blondebubbles wrote: »

HMRC have been reducing their staff for a number of years. Concentrix are cheaper.

Hello and don't we know it!
The staff that they are retaining at HMRC excludes the professional, highly trained and well experienced. These people were the first to get their marching orders under enforced redundancy. What HMRC are left with are under trained, lack the years of experience and knowledge and to put it bluntly, lack the ability to understand the complexities of tax legislation.


At one time no one was allowed anywhere near the general public until they had been fully trained and tested on their ability to understand tax legislation and how it should be implemented.