I've just found out my whole tax credit claim for 3 years is owed back (£6,000)

The Halk said:
ironing.jpg


Edit : Oops, sweary watermark in gif.
Click to expand...

lol I don't usually get that one wrong (I usually remember to google if its an a or an e :S - cba with a browser based spell checker as it usually gets in the way more than it helps)
 
The whole tax credit thing is a joke and massively complex. I believe we are entiltled to a very small amount of around £10 but I didn't even bother as I have no faith in HMRC getting it right. When I was younger my mum who was a single working parent had a bill for 4k for overpayments that caused her so much stress.

These tax credit should be done through a change to your tax code and taken care of by payroll. We don't need a department just to give us back money that we didn't need to pay in the first place. Do we blame Labour or the Conservatives this waste of resources?
 
Considering most of these workers would probably have been the lackeys from the Blair era, where people were hired just to artificially change the employment figures, with incredibly lengthy named jobs that were really just extra pointless bureaucracy.

Not surprised.
 
This is exactly why we dont claim child tax credits, its too much grief for the pittance we would get so I dont even bother filling the forms!
 
King Damager said:
Bet you'll have to pay interest as well....

kd
Click to expand...

I'm just thinking out loud but I'd like to think they could be prevented from doing so by estoppel.

OP if you wanted to be clever you could potentially allege estoppel to prevent paying back part of the sum, although it's been awhile since I looked at that area of law in any depth.

Here's what I'm talking about for those interested - I know, I know, quoting wiki is gross...

Estoppel by representation

Estoppel by representation of fact is a term coined by Spencer Bower. This species of estoppel is also referred to as "common law estoppel by representation" in Halsbury's Laws of England, vol 16(2), 2003 reissue.

In The Law relating to Estoppel by Representation, 4th edition, 2004 at para I.2.2, Spencer Bower defines estoppel by representation of fact as follows:

“ where one person (‘the representor’) has made a representation of fact to another person (‘the representee’) in words or by acts or conduct, or (being under a duty to the representee to speak or act) by silence or inaction, with the intention (actual or presumptive) and with the result of inducing the representee on the faith of such representation to alter his position to his detriment, the representor, in any litigation which may afterwards take place between him and the representee, is estopped, as against the representee, from making, or attempting to establish by evidence, any averment substantially at variance with his former representation, if the representee at the proper time, and in proper manner, objects thereto. ”

A second definition can be found at Wilken and Villiers, The Law of Waiver, Variation and Estoppel, 2nd ed, Oxford: 2003, at para 9.02:

“ An estoppel by representation [of fact] will arise between A and B if the following elements are made out. First, A makes a false representation of fact to B or to a group of which B was a member. [It is not necessary to demonstrate A knew that the representation was untrue.] Second, in making the representation, A intended or [in the alternatively,] knew that it was likely to be acted upon. Third, B, believing the representation, acts to its detriment in reliance on the representation. [It must have been reasonable to rely on the representation.] Fourth, A subsequently seeks to deny the truth of the representation. Fifth, no defence to the estoppel can be raised by A. ”

A representation can be made by statement or conduct. Although the representation must be clear and unambiguous, a representation can be inferred from silence where there is a duty to speak or from negligence where a duty of care arises. Under English law, estoppel by representation of fact is not a cause of action, though it may be a defence or acts in support of a cause of action. There is some debate whether under English law courts will take into account unconscionability under estoppel by representation of fact, although Australian courts clearly do.[1]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
I'm just thinking out loud but I'd like to think they could be prevented from doing so by estoppel.

OP if you wanted to be clever you could potentially allege estoppel to prevent paying back part of the sum, although it's been awhile since I looked at that area of law in any depth.

Here's what I'm talking about for those interested - I know, I know, quoting wiki is gross...
Click to expand...

I have synpathy for the OP but I can't see how that would help.

If he'd provided all the relevant information and they'd overpaid him then it may be a relevant point.

That wouldn't appear to be the case.

When he intially claimed this was based on him working a certain number of hours.

At some point his hours dropped below the required level of 30 hours a week but he didn't provide that information.

He provided the information that his income had dropped but didn't state that this was because he was working less hours.
 
I certainly don't think that he could use estoppel to avoid paying back the whole sum, although I think you could construct an argument along those lines if there had been a representation of sorts that the requirement to supply that information was subsequently waived - although that would totally depend on the fact pattern, which probably isn't relevant here.

However, I would say on face value that allowing the OP to accumulate this debt and then demanding interest on it as KD implies would be equitably dubious, which was more the point I was making.
 
Nitefly said:
However, I would say on face value that allowing the OP to accumulate this debt and then demanding interest on it as KD implies would be equitably dubious, which was more the point I was making.
Click to expand...

If the debt has accumulated due to the OP not providing the infomation that his circumstances had changed vis-à-vis his working hours then I suppose the arguement is that they haven't allowed him to accumulate the debt.

The debt has accumulated due to his own error.
 
Surveyor said:
The debt has accumulated due to his own error.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, both parties have a responsibility. When in a position where a benefit is provided upon a qualification, it's not too difficult to construct they had a duty of care to ensure that those payments were not paid in error and should earnings have fell (which they did), they had constructive knowledge that his circumstances had changed and should have made enquiries in this regard. If anything, it seems on face value that such checks should be made annually and in the absence of any other facts, it would seem grossly onerous to charge interest on a debt that should never have been accumulated in the first place when there was no intentional deceit by the beneficiary.

Go go gadget equity! :p
 
Nitefly said:
On the other hand, both parties have a responsibility. When in a position where a benefit is provided upon a qualification, it's not too difficult to construct they had a duty of care to ensure that those payments were not paid in error and should earnings have fell (which they did), they had constructive knowledge that his circumstances had changed and should have made enquiries in this regard. If anything, it seems on face value that such checks should be made annually and in the absence of any other facts, it would seem grossly onerous to charge interest on a debt that should never have been accumulated in the first place when there was no intentional deceit by the beneficiary.

Go go gadget equity! :p
Click to expand...

It sounds like they exercised a duty of care to ensure his Tax Credits were correct by sending him forms to complete where he had the opportunity to state any change in his circumstances.

It appears he told them his income was reduced but not that his working hours were less.

The latter can't be assumed from the former.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom