We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Tax Rebate claimed by a 3rd party


I had a letter from HMRC last year advising that I was entitled to a tax rebate and it had been sent to a claims company. Said company then emailed to say they wanted my details to send the rebate to me.
I hadn't authorised this, so I emailed claims co. and asked them to refund my money in full (without deducting their fee), or provide me with a copy of my signature authorising them to act in my behalf.
Long story short, all they kept doing was replying saying they would escalate it or come back to me. But never did. I contacted the financial ombudsman and they said they couldn't do anything as it was an HMRC issue. (Even though I tried to argue that HMRC wasn't at fault). But the ombudsman would not get involved.
I contacted HMRC, and all they could advise was they had an electronic document from this co claiming that they had my authorisation.
So, I am still without my rebate and don't know where to turn.
Can anyone help me please?
Comments
-
If you won't provide the company with your details, which is an understandable position to take, then I'm not sure there is much you can do.
Have you written to HMRC and notified them you no longer want this company to act on your behalf?0 -
SleepSheep said:Said company then emailed to say they wanted my details to send the rebate to me.
Do cancel the authorisation once the money is refunded.0 -
SleepSheep said:Hi. I don't know where else to ask this.
I had a letter from HMRC last year advising that I was entitled to a tax rebate and it had been sent to a claims company. Said company then emailed to say they wanted my details to send the rebate to me.
I hadn't authorised this, so I emailed claims co. and asked them to refund my money in full (without deducting their fee), or provide me with a copy of my signature authorising them to act in my behalf.
Long story short, all they kept doing was replying saying they would escalate it or come back to me. But never did. I contacted the financial ombudsman and they said they couldn't do anything as it was an HMRC issue. (Even though I tried to argue that HMRC wasn't at fault). But the ombudsman would not get involved.
I contacted HMRC, and all they could advise was they had an electronic document from this co claiming that they had my authorisation.
So, I am still without my rebate and don't know where to turn.
Can anyone help me please?Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
SleepSheep said:Hi. I don't know where else to ask this.
I had a letter from HMRC last year advising that I was entitled to a tax rebate and it had been sent to a claims company. Said company then emailed to say they wanted my details to send the rebate to me.
I hadn't authorised this, so I emailed claims co. and asked them to refund my money in full (without deducting their fee), or provide me with a copy of my signature authorising them to act in my behalf.
Long story short, all they kept doing was replying saying they would escalate it or come back to me. But never did. I contacted the financial ombudsman and they said they couldn't do anything as it was an HMRC issue. (Even though I tried to argue that HMRC wasn't at fault). But the ombudsman would not get involved.
I contacted HMRC, and all they could advise was they had an electronic document from this co claiming that they had my authorisation.
So, I am still without my rebate and don't know where to turn.
Can anyone help me please?
The key activity is to kill off the authorisation with HMRC of them as your agents to stop the issue repeating itself0 -
I think the OP knows more about this company than they are letting on. It is very interesting to immediately respond to news of a rebate with a request to refund the amount net of a fee and to provide a copy of your signature. Did they know they were due a rebate?
Both of these requests are very telling - the signature thing is a regular misunderstanding by newcomers on this forum (specifically, thinking that if a company doesn't have your signature, there is no contract) and is commonly used as an attempt to wriggle out of agreements.
If someone (hypothetically, of course) was to have been lured in by one of these social media 'you may be owed thousands' ads online, and then came to learn they were entitled to a rebate, they may begrudge the fee they have to pay to reclaim their money and be tempted to try wriggle out paying feeling safe in the knowledge that they never 'signed anything'.
I may be miles off, I just found the OP's reaction and sequence of events very strange. The alternative would be that the claims company has effectively committed fraud and presumably gained the OP's details from a data breach (and somehow deceived HMRC through forgery that they have authorisation to act on the OP's behalf), all so they can claim a refund for the OP (very kind I must say).
Know what you don't1 -
Thanks everyone.
I haven't authorised them as far as I am aware. Hence why I asked them for proof. The fact that they have not provided it, makes me even more suspicious.
"IF" I have somehow given them authorisation, then I would obviously swallow it and accept the final balance.
But I think the reply stating that I have authorised it and then tried to pull out for my own financial gain, is somewhat rude. The first I knew of this company and its involvement was when I received a letter from HMRC, and then contact from the claims company.
Surely, if you had got a letter stating you were owed money but it had been sent to a 3rd party that you were not aware of, you would have contacted them to ask why they were acting on your behalf, and also ask for proof???0 -
As above - did you use a claims firm for the purposes of PPI, diesel compo etc?
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.2K Spending & Discounts
- 243.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.5K Life & Family
- 256.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards