MSE News: HMRC to axe tax credit checking firm Concentrix with immediate effect

MSE_Luke

HMRC has announced that it's ended its tax credits fraud contract with Concentrix with immediate effect...

Read the full story:
'HMRC to axe tax credit checking firm Concentrix with immediate effect'

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

missapril75

Another in a long list of private agencies to fail in the duties previously carried out perfectly adequately (when appropriately staffed) by the government departs responsible.

MABLE

missapril75 wrote: »

Another in a long list of private agencies to fail in the duties previously carried out perfectly adequately (when appropriately staffed) by the government departs responsible.

The knew when they were trialling this with another company it wasn't working and had loads of cases handed back to them at the end of the trial period. However HMRC thought they knew best and as we know a bigger disaster followed.

Londonsu

As long as there are still checks in place to prevent mistakes by claimants and to check claimants entitlement particularly any anomalies in the claim and to claw back any overpayments, as long as questions will still be asked of claimants who only work the bare minimum required to ensure they are entitled to the maximum amount of tax credits they can possibly get I see no problem

speedfreek1000

The issue wasn't so much the checks n balances but.....

The illegal shift to making claimants prove entitlement when the regulations state it is up to HMRC to disprove entitlement with evidence.

That and the fact HMRC make it as impossible as possible to lodge or progress any decision appeal against them.

Concentrix went on an approved fishing exercise which for the vast majority involved being accused of a false hood e.g. living with another person they were not. They then stopped benefit payments and demanded that the person accused try and supply enough evidence to disprove that accusation whilst supplying no evidence to support their view.

Asking the person to prove a negative is almost impossible, vastly unfair and not the way the regulations were written.

Lanzarote1938

speedfreek1000 wrote: »

The illegal shift to making claimants prove entitlement when the regulations state it is up to HMRC to disprove entitlement with evidence.

I had to prove my entitlement before I could claim SRP. Surely everyone has to prove they are actually entitled to money from taxpayers?

Darksparkle

speedfreek1000 wrote: »

The issue wasn't so much the checks n balances but.....

The illegal shift to making claimants prove entitlement when the regulations state it is up to HMRC to disprove entitlement with evidence.

That and the fact HMRC make it as impossible as possible to lodge or progress any decision appeal against them.
.

What regulation states that? Genuine question.

How is it impossible to lodge an appeal? The form is on the website (not that it even needs to be one the standard form).

Icequeen99

speedfreek1000 wrote: »

The issue wasn't so much the checks n balances but.....

The illegal shift to making claimants prove entitlement when the regulations state it is up to HMRC to disprove entitlement with evidence.

That and the fact HMRC make it as impossible as possible to lodge or progress any decision appeal against them.

Concentrix went on an approved fishing exercise which for the vast majority involved being accused of a false hood e.g. living with another person they were not. They then stopped benefit payments and demanded that the person accused try and supply enough evidence to disprove that accusation whilst supplying no evidence to support their view.

Asking the person to prove a negative is almost impossible, vastly unfair and not the way the regulations were written.

I think the point you make about the regulations is slightly misleading.

There are lots of decision making powers in tax credits - initial decisions when you claim are under Section 14, changes you report under Section 15, changes to your award during the year by HMRC under 16, final decisions under 18 and then enquiries after the year has ended under 19 and 20.

It is only section 16 and 19 decisions where the burden of proof is on HMRC to show the award is wrong. In all other cases the burden is on the claimant.

So the recent set of cases during the renewals period - the burden was on the claimant to prove their claim was correct. This was mis-reported several times that I noticed.

IQ

nannytone_2

Lanzarote1938 wrote: »

I had to prove my entitlement before I could claim SRP. Surely everyone has to prove they are actually entitled to money from taxpayers?

you had to prove something was true.
that you were the correct age and that you had paid contributions.

say they had asked for proof that something was untrue?
people are being asked to prove that someone they've never heard of GOES NOT live with them. for example.

should be easy right?

yet the people that have had benefit stopped for weeks and moths attests that it isnrt

Londonsu

nannytone wrote: »

you had to prove something was true.
that you were the correct age and that you had paid contributions.

say they had asked for proof that something was untrue?
people are being asked to prove that someone they've never heard of GOES NOT live with them. for example.

should be easy right?

yet the people that have had benefit stopped for weeks and moths attests that it isnrt

I agree it should be better but there has to be checks in place, I would love to live in a society where everyone who claimed was legitimate and no one cheated just as much as I would love to live in a society where people got their entitlements with minimum stress or fuss, I don't think I will ever live in a society where both will be true.

nannytone_2

of course there has to be checks.
i was just stating that you proving you are entitled to SRP isn't the same as someone having to prove that they DONT live with someone.

its easy to prove something 'is' and so much harder to prove something 'isn't
[
i live alone and obviously everything is in my name.
but if the person that lived here before hadn't changed their details, it may quite show up as they still live at my address.

i don't know this person. i don't know where they live, work etc.
so how would i prove they don't live here when their information shows that they do?

( just using myself as an exampple. my place is a new build and no one apart from me has ever lived here)/B]