MISFORTUNE IN THE 1980s
0353 Complaint to the Treasury
[This is a copy of my submission to the ombudsman about my tax complaints]
First/Financial Secretary 31 July 1992
The Treasury
Dear Sir,
CONCERNING MALADMINISTRATION (under more than 15 separate headings) OVER A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS BY A NUMBER OF OFFICES, MOST ESPECIALLY MILTON KEYNES 2 - tax office case reference 402/029/PJD (NI: ZW 23 22 96 B)
At the suggestion of Barry Legg MP, before submitting my complaint to the ombudsman for the Inland Revenue, I would be grateful if you would institute an investigation of not one but a large number of events, over a period of six years, which may justifiably be termed maladministration by offices of the Inland Revenue. The key events in question are summarised on the attached 'Timetable of Events'. All the letters listed should already be in the relevant files of the Inland Revenue, but - as one of the complaints is the number of times these records have previously been lost - I attach copies of these; and hopefully this will also reduce the work entailed in any investigation. It should be noted that these represent only some of the communications involved, where the detailed back-up correspondence was even more prolific.
The summary of the main charges of maladministration is as follows:
1) GROSS INCOMPETENCE/NEGLIGENCE
This a compendium category for a number of more detailed events;
a) LOST RECORDS - from May 1986 to January 1989 the complete Inland Revenue files on my case were lost by various offices (including Staines, Bradford and Milton Keynes 2) no less than 3 times. Each time I had to provide copies of my own files to replace those which had been lost.
b) LOST TAX RETURN - more specifically, in November 1988 and January 1989 my tax returns were lost despite the fact that in the latter case it had been delivered by hand, by myself, to the Milton Keynes 2 office and was thus definitely lost within that office.
Since that time I have had ongoing problems, each year (except 1992) obtaining forms on which to make my returns.
These items were the basis for my first complaint of maladministration, made to the Milton Keynes 2 office in my letter of 22 January 1989.
c) INCORRECT EXPERT (LEGAL) ADVICE - as is obvious from the correspondence, there is considerable controversy surrounding the Inland Revenue's expert views on the key issue. I would contend that their advice is not merely wrong but naively so - but that remains to be proved. What has already been proved is that their guidance on the treatment of stock losses was palpably wrong (and indeed the original legislation was probably poorly drafted) - as reported in the letter of 19 September 1990. Most important of all was their total failure even to detect the fact that the item under debate was assessed in the wrong year - letter of 14 July 1990.
d) FAILURE TO RECOGNISE THE IMMINENCE OF THE SIX YEAR TIME LIMIT - this, in turn, led to a failure (of management as well as by the experts) to recognise that the deadline was approaching - the mistake featured in the letter of 14 July 1992.
2) UNJUSTIFIABLE DELAYS AND BADLY HANDLED CHANGES IN PERSONNEL
The whole process has now lasted more than six years, despite the fact that the issues should not have been difficult to resolve, when all the key ones were already identified in my original (promptly provided) returns and I myself have been pressing for urgent resolution for most of the six years (and have been turning around my personal responses on average in less than a week). No new matters have been raised in that time, and the delays since have been due to very slow responses by the Inland Revenue in relation to, largely unnecessary, detailed investigations leading to repetitive statements of unchanged position.
a) DELAYS IN RESPONSE - taking the 21 main communications (with topics being handled in parallel) the average delay in responding to each of my letters was 6 months.
b) UNREASONABLE NUMBERS OF CHANGES IN INSPECTOR COMPOUNDED BY POOR HANDOVERS - my case has been handled in turn by no less than 8 tax inspectors;
Miss Norman - Staines (October 1987)
Anonymous - Bradford (January 1988)*
Anonymous - Milton Keynes 2 (June 1988)*
Mr Lewis - Milton Keynes 2 (June 1989) *
Mrs Maffei - Milton Keynes 2 (July 1989)*
G Wiseman - Milton Keynes 2 (September 1989)
Miss V James - Milton Keynes 2 (April 1990)
Mrs Dixon - Milton Keynes 2 (December 1991)
PJ Dickinson - Milton Keynes 2 (July 1992)
It is clearly not possible to maintain the same staff over a period as long as six years - though that timescale was a direct result of 2a above (and the period when I was working with three officers in as many months was clearly unacceptable). More important was that in each situation the changeover was very poorly handled. It was evident that (in all these changeovers) the new inspector had not been briefed on my case - and did not even seem to have all the relevant documents to hand. The inevitable result was that on at least 8 occasions I had to start all the groundwork again, painstakingly explaining the position to an inspector who was ignorant of what had gone before. On four of these occasions (shown with asterisks above) I had to provide completely new sets of records where those of the Inland Revenue had been lost.
3) HARASSMENT
The prime device which seems to have been deployed against me (and which I first formally reported in my letter of 19 September 1990) has been harassment, on a number of fronts:
a) DELAY - as reported on 2a above, there have been inordinate delays, causing a considerable amount of rework at each stage (in addition to that caused by changes in personnel) - and in the process applying considerable psychological pressure due to the uncertainty.
b) REPETITION - The same points have been returned to over and over again, justifying further delays on the part of the Inland Revenue, with no progress being made. For example, the key issue of Section 148 has been returned to on no less than 6 occasions ( letters of 25 April 1990, 17 May 1990, 17 September 1990, 10 December 1991, 14 July 1992) with exactly the same outcome.
c) DEMANDS FOR IRRELEVANT DETAIL - investigation of the key issues has been extended and obfuscated by unreasonable requirements to provide irrelevant (and difficult to find) supporting evidence. Examples of this included in the attached correspondence are shown in the letters of; 1 June 1989, 5 September 1989, 16 March 1990, 25 April 1990, 17 May 1990, 21 May 1990, 13 June 1990, 22 June 1990, 17 September 1990, 19 September 1990.
d) THREATS OF FURTHER INVESTIGATION - the more informal contacts led from time to time to very discrete suggestions that investigations might be extended in unspecified ways, using the wider (more draconian) powers of the Inland Revenue.
Under pressure from this harassment I eventually succumbed to Mrs Maffei's 'good guy' technique and agreed a settlement - which was very much to my disadvantage. It was only the Inland Revenue's subsequent breach of even this contract which gave me the incentive to fight back.
4) BREACH OF AGREEMENT/CONTRACT
On the two critical (face to face) occasions when formal agreements (contracts) were concluded (with Mrs Maffei, 17 October 1990, and Mrs Dixon, 11 March 1992) these were subsequently disowned by their successors; even though the agreement with Mrs Maffei had even been confirmed in writing.
Overall, there was an seeming lack of ethical/moral considerations by the inspectors; as evidenced by these breaches of contract but also by what at times seemed to be a lack of integrity and possibly by some lapses in accuracy/honesty. This contrasted somewhat with my own scrupulously honest approach. Indeed, I have been told that the whole problem came about because I reported (in a spirit of full disclosure) items (the payments by IBM) which should never have been assessed - since they were exempt. It would appear that the inspectors, used perhaps to dealing with less honest customers, are still looking for what they assume I must really be hiding!
5) DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS OF APPEAL
In view of all the problems I have encountered I have been strenuously seeking an appeal (on the 1986/1987 assessment) since 21 September 1989; and this demand was subsequently formally reiterated in the letters of - 19 September 1990, 1 December 1991, 14 December 1991 and 17 July 1992. My right of appeal has, however, been repeatedly denied, by a number of devices:
a) DELAY - once again, the six month average delay in response has been used to avoid taking action.
b) STUDIED AVOIDANCE - the response has then typically avoided reference to my demand for an appeal - letters of 17 May 1990, 9 April 1992, 14 July 1992.
c) UNFULFILLED PROMISES - or the response has been to promise some form of resolution, only for this to be disowned at a later stage - letters of 17 November 1989, 19 October 1990.
d) REFUSAL - most recently, however, the response has taken the form of outright refusal - on the grounds, for example, that the Inland Revenue inspector has the right to introduce an unspecified delay while 'further investigations are undertaken' - letters of 13 June 1990, 8 January 1992.
hits