HMRC Must Investigate Deliveroo, Uber Eats etc for Enabling Illegal Migrant Labour

 

Recent media reports have exposed a disturbing trend: illegal migrants are allegedly working for major gig economy platforms like Deliveroo, Uber Eats, and Just Eat, often using fake IDs or shared accounts to bypass right-to-work checks. This scandal not only undermines UK immigration laws but also raises serious questions about tax compliance, worker exploitation, and corporate accountability. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has a clear duty to investigate these companies and crack down on practices that enable illegal working. The time for action is now.

 

Over the past year, investigations by outlets like The Telegraph and GB News have revealed that asylum seekers, some housed in Home Office-funded hotels, are earning up to £500 a week as delivery riders. Many reportedly use fraudulent documents or rent accounts from legitimate drivers for as little as £70 a week, exploiting loopholes in the platforms’ verification processes. These practices, described as part of a “dark economy,” allow illegal workers to operate undetected, often without paying taxes or National Insurance contributions.

 

HMRC, as the agency responsible for enforcing tax and employment law compliance, cannot ignore this. Employing workers without the right to work in the UK can lead to undeclared wages, tax evasion, and breaches of minimum wage laws—issues squarely within HMRC’s remit. While the Home Office leads on immigration enforcement, HMRC’s role in auditing businesses for financial irregularities means it has the tools and authority to probe these companies’ practices. If Deliveroo, Uber Eats, and others are turning a blind eye to illegal labour, HMRC must hold them accountable.

 

The scale of the problem is alarming. A 2023 spot check reportedly found that 42% of delivery drivers were working illegally, suggesting that platforms may be factoring illegal labour into their business models. Social media posts on X have called out these companies for failing to verify IDs or allowing account sharing, with some accusing HMRC of inaction. Meanwhile, legitimate workers and taxpayers bear the cost of a system that rewards exploitation and non-compliance.

 

Critics argue that these platforms prioritise profit over due diligence. Enhanced security checks, promised by Deliveroo, Uber Eats, and Just Eat in 2024, have not stemmed the tide of illegal working. Reports of “master forgers” supplying fake identities to criminal networks further highlight the need for robust verification systems. HMRC’s forensic auditing capabilities could uncover whether these companies are knowingly or negligently failing to comply with employment and tax regulations.

 

An HMRC investigation would send a clear message: no company is above the law. It should focus on three key areas. First, examine the platforms’ right-to-work verification processes to determine if they are fit for purpose or deliberately lax. Second, audit their financial records for evidence of undeclared earnings or cash-in-hand payments to illegal workers. Third, collaborate with the Home Office to trace the tax and immigration status of gig workers flagged in recent media reports.

 

The public deserves transparency and accountability. If Deliveroo, Uber Eats, and others are complicit in enabling illegal labour, they must face hefty fines and reputational consequences. HMRC’s inaction risks eroding trust in the tax system and emboldening companies to skirt the law. By launching a thorough investigation, HMRC can protect honest businesses, uphold immigration controls, and ensure that the gig economy operates fairly for all.

 

The evidence is mounting, and the clock is ticking. HMRC must act decisively to investigate these companies and close the loopholes that fuel illegal working. Anything less is a betrayal of the British taxpayer.

 

All HMRC has to do is to order some food and check to documents and records of those who deliver it.

Tax does have to be taxing.


HMRC Is Shite (www.hmrcisshite.com), also available via the domain www.hmrconline.com, is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Strike at HMRC Newcastle Office Ends, But Sacked Staff Are Not Reinstated

After six months of industrial action, the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union has called an end to strikes at HM Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC) Benton Park View office, located outside Newcastle. The prolonged dispute, which began in response to controversial staffing decisions and workplace concerns, has concluded without HMRC agreeing to reinstate sacked workers, leaving the union weighing its next moves.

 

The strikes, which disrupted operations at one of HMRC’s key regional hubs, were driven by the PCS union’s demands for better working conditions, job security, and the reversal of dismissals that the union deemed unfair. The Benton Park View office, a critical centre for tax processing and customer service, saw hundreds of workers participate in the action, highlighting deep-seated frustrations with HMRC’s management practices.

 

Throughout the dispute, the PCS union argued that HMRC’s refusal to engage meaningfully on the issue of sacked staff exacerbated tensions. The union accused HMRC of prioritising cost-cutting over employee welfare, pointing to the dismissals as evidence of a broader pattern of disregard for workers’ rights. HMRC, in response, maintained that its staffing decisions were necessary to ensure operational efficiency and compliance with organisational objectives.

 

The decision to end the strike action came after months of negotiations failed to produce a breakthrough. While the PCS union secured some concessions on workplace issues, HMRC’s refusal to reinstate the sacked workers has been a sticking point. Union representatives expressed disappointment but emphasised that the fight is far from over. “We’ve shown incredible solidarity over the past six months, and while the strikes are pausing, our campaign for justice continues,” a PCS spokesperson said.

 

The end of the strike does not signal a resolution to the underlying grievances. The PCS union is now consulting with its members to determine future steps, which could include further industrial action, legal challenges, or intensified lobbying for policy changes. The union has also called on HMRC to reconsider its stance on the sacked workers, warning that failure to address the issue could lead to renewed unrest.

 

For HMRC, the conclusion of the strikes may bring temporary relief, but the agency faces ongoing scrutiny over its handling of the dispute. Employees at Benton Park View and other HMRC offices are watching closely, and the outcome of this conflict could set a precedent for how the agency navigates future labour disputes.

 

As the PCS union regroups, the situation remains fluid. The next steps will depend on member feedback and HMRC’s willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue. For now, the workers at Benton Park View return to their roles with a mix of resolve and uncertainty, as the union prepares to chart its course forward in this ongoing struggle for workplace fairness.

Tax does have to be taxing.



HMRC Is Shite (www.hmrcisshite.com), also available via the domain www.hmrconline.com, is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

HMRC’s Colossal Failure: £47m Stolen, 100,000 Taxpayers Betrayed

 

In a staggering display of incompetence, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has allowed organised criminal gangs to plunder £47 million by exploiting the personal tax accounts of approximately 100,000 British taxpayers. This catastrophic breach, revealed in June 2025, is not just a financial loss—it’s a betrayal of public trust, a monumental failure of duty, and a glaring indictment of HMRC’s inability to safeguard sensitive data in an era of rampant digital crime. The victims, ordinary PAYE taxpayers, deserve answers, accountability, and, frankly, compensation. It’s time for those affected to unite and pursue a class action lawsuit against HMRC for damages caused by this unforgivable lapse.

A Breach of Trust, Not Just Systems

The details of the breach are as infuriating as they are alarming. Criminals, using phishing tactics, accessed the accounts of 0.2% of PAYE taxpayers—roughly 100,000 individuals—over an extended period in 2024. These fraudsters, posing as legitimate taxpayers, siphoned off £47 million (equivalent to $64 million) by claiming fraudulent repayments. HMRC’s response? A dismissive insistence that this was “not a cyber-attack” but merely “organised crime phishing” using data obtained externally. This semantic dodge is an insult to the public’s intelligence. Whether it’s labelled a cyber-attack or phishing, the result is the same: HMRC failed to protect its systems and the sensitive personal information entrusted to it.

 

Phishing scams rely on tricking individuals into divulging login credentials or other sensitive data, often through fake emails or texts impersonating trusted entities like HMRC. But the scale of this breach—100,000 accounts and £47 million stolen—points to systemic vulnerabilities in HMRC’s infrastructure. The tax authority’s push toward digitalisation, particularly through its Making Tax Digital scheme, has forced millions to manage their taxes online, yet HMRC appears woefully unprepared to secure these systems against sophisticated fraudsters. The irony is palpable: an agency that relentlessly pursues taxpayers for minor errors has been fleeced by criminals to the tune of tens of millions, with ordinary citizens caught in the crossfire.

HMRC’s Excuses Don’t Hold Water

HMRC’s leadership, including Chief Executive John-Paul Marks and Deputy Chief Executive Angela MacDonald, have tried to downplay the scandal. They claim no taxpayers suffered “financial loss” and that affected accounts have been locked down, with login credentials deleted to prevent further misuse. But this assurance rings hollow. The absence of direct financial loss to individuals does not erase the profound violation of having personal tax accounts compromised, nor does it address the emotional distress, time, and effort required to navigate the fallout. Taxpayers are now left wondering whether their personal details—names, addresses, National Insurance numbers—are circulating on the dark web, ripe for further exploitation.

 

Moreover, HMRC’s claim that this wasn’t a “cyber-attack” but rather phishing using externally obtained data is a distinction without a difference. If criminals could access 100,000 accounts using stolen credentials, it exposes a critical failure in HMRC’s authentication and security protocols. Why weren’t multi-factor authentication or advanced fraud detection systems robust enough to flag such widespread abuse? Why did it take so long to detect an “extended” campaign that began in 2024? And why were taxpayers not warned sooner? HMRC’s belated response—writing to affected individuals by June 25, 2025—smacks of damage control rather than proactive protection.

 

The tax authority’s history of fending off cyber threats only deepens the scandal. In 2023 alone, HMRC blocked over 40 million malicious emails, a testament to the relentless targeting of its systems. Yet, despite this awareness, they failed to prevent a £47 million heist. This isn’t just negligence—it’s a dereliction of duty that demands accountability.

The Case for a Class Action Lawsuit

The scale of this breach and HMRC’s cavalier response justify a collective legal response. A class action lawsuit against HMRC could hold the agency accountable and compensate affected taxpayers for the damages they’ve suffered—damages that extend far beyond mere financial loss. Here’s why such a lawsuit is not only warranted but necessary:

 

1. Breach of Duty of Care: HMRC has a legal and moral obligation to protect taxpayers’ personal data. By allowing criminals to exploit 100,000 accounts, HMRC failed to uphold basic standards of data security, potentially violating data protection laws like the UK GDPR. Affected taxpayers could claim damages for distress, inconvenience, and the risk of future identity theft.
2. Emotional and Practical Harm: Even if no taxpayer lost money directly, the psychological toll of knowing your personal tax account was compromised cannot be understated. Victims face the stress of potential identity fraud, the burden of monitoring their accounts, and the hassle of dealing with HMRC’s bureaucracy to restore their records. These are tangible harms that merit compensation.
3. Systemic Negligence: The breach’s scale suggests HMRC’s systems were inadequately secured, especially given the agency’s knowledge of phishing risks. A class action could force HMRC to overhaul its cybersecurity practices, preventing future failures and protecting the public.
4. Loss of Public Funds: The £47 million stolen is taxpayer money—money that could have funded public services. HMRC’s failure to safeguard these funds is a betrayal of every citizen, and those directly affected deserve restitution for the agency’s role in this loss.

A class action lawsuit would send a clear message: government agencies cannot hide behind excuses or bureaucratic inertia when they fail the public. Law firms specialising in data breach claims, such as those that have pursued cases against other public bodies, could rally affected taxpayers to seek damages. The UK’s legal framework allows for group litigation orders, enabling large groups to sue collectively, and the precedent set by cases like the 2018 Equifax breach demonstrates that compensation for data misuse is achievable.

HMRC’s Pattern of Failure

This isn’t HMRC’s first brush with controversy. The agency has been criticised for degrading phone services, leaving taxpayers struggling to get help, and for issuing fines that some have mistaken for phishing scams due to poor communication. On the same day the breach came to light, HMRC’s phone lines suffered an outage, further isolating victims seeking clarity. This pattern of dysfunction—pushing digital services while failing to secure them or support users—shows an agency out of touch with its responsibilities.

 

HMRC’s claim that it protected £1.9 billion from fraud last year is cold comfort when £47 million slipped through the cracks. The agency’s assurances that a criminal investigation is underway and arrests have been made do little to restore confidence when the damage is already done. Taxpayers deserve more than platitudes—they deserve justice.

A Call to Action

If you’re one of the 100,000 taxpayers affected by this breach, don’t accept HMRC’s assurances at face value. Your personal data was compromised, your trust violated, and your tax authority failed you. Contact a solicitor experienced in data breach litigation to explore your options. Gather any correspondence from HMRC about the breach, document any distress or inconvenience, and join forces with other victims to demand accountability.

 

HMRC’s £47 million debacle isn’t just a number—it’s a wake-up call. The tax authority’s negligence has left taxpayers vulnerable and public funds depleted. A class action lawsuit is the only way to ensure HMRC faces the consequences of its failures and to secure compensation for those whose trust was betrayed. The time for accountability is now. Let’s make HMRC answer for its incompetence—together.

Tax does have to be taxing.



HMRC Is Shite (www.hmrcisshite.com), also available via the domain www.hmrconline.com, is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

HMRC’s Blunder: Billing Self-Employed Workers for a Tax That Doesn’t Exist

 

 

In a display of bureaucratic incompetence that would make Kafka blush, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has been caught red-handed billing self-employed workers for a tax that was abolished in April 2024. Class 2 National Insurance (NI) contributions, once a mandatory levy for self-employed individuals earning above £6,725, were scrapped as part of a welcome reform to simplify the tax system. Yet, in a move that defies logic and exposes the agency’s systemic failures, HMRC has continued to demand payments—£179.40, and in some cases, a staggering £358.80—from workers who are now exempt. This is not just an administrative hiccup; it’s a scandal that undermines trust in the UK’s tax authority and leaves self-employed workers footing the bill for HMRC’s negligence.

A Tax That Shouldn’t Exist

Class 2 NI contributions, a flat-rate charge paid by self-employed individuals to qualify for benefits like the state pension, were eliminated for the 2024/25 tax year to ease the financial burden on freelancers, sole traders, and small business owners. The change was widely publicised, with HMRC itself confirming that self-employed individuals with profits above £12,570 would no longer need to pay this levy, while those below the threshold could opt for voluntary contributions. The reform was meant to streamline taxes and give self-employed workers a break after years of navigating a complex system. But instead of delivering on this promise, HMRC has turned a straightforward policy change into a nightmare of erroneous billing and bureaucratic stonewalling.

 

Reports have surfaced of self-employed workers receiving tax bills that include Class 2 NI charges—sometimes doubled to £358.80—despite the abolition. Imagine the frustration: you’re a freelancer already grappling with unpredictable income, only to receive a demand from HMRC for a tax that no longer exists. Worse still, HMRC’s response has been a masterclass in deflection, with some workers instructed to pay the erroneous charges and then apply for a refund using form CA8480 or an online service. This is not a solution; it’s a bureaucratic runaround that places the burden on taxpayers to clean up HMRC’s mess.

A Pattern of Incompetence

This isn’t HMRC’s first rodeo when it comes to mishandling Class 2 NI contributions. In 2022/23, the agency admitted to a “processing error” that led to voluntary Class 2 contributions being wrongly refunded, leaving some workers’ National Insurance records incomplete and their pension entitlements at risk. Fast forward to 2025, and HMRC seems to have learned nothing. The agency’s failure to update its systems to reflect the abolition of Class 2 NI is not a one-off glitch but a symptom of deeper issues: outdated technology, inadequate staff training, and a culture of indifference to the real-world consequences of their errors.

 

The impact on self-employed workers is profound. Many operate on tight margins, and an unexpected bill of £179.40—or double that—can mean the difference between paying rent or falling behind. Forcing workers to pay first and seek refunds later is not only unfair but also financially crippling, especially when HMRC’s refund process can take weeks, if not months. And let’s not ignore the psychological toll: the stress of navigating HMRC’s labyrinthine helplines, where callers are often met with long wait times and unhelpful responses, is enough to make anyone question the agency’s competence.

HMRC’s Deflection and Denial

HMRC’s handling of this fiasco is a case study in how not to manage a crisis. Instead of proactively identifying and correcting the erroneous bills, the agency has shifted the responsibility onto taxpayers. The advice to “pay now, refund later” is an admission of failure, effectively punishing workers for HMRC’s inability to get its house in order. The agency’s National Insurance Contributions office (reachable at 0300 200 3500) has been cited as a point of contact for resolving issues, but good luck getting through to someone who can actually help. Posts on X and reports from tax professionals indicate that HMRC is “still trying to sort it out,” a vague assurance that inspires little confidence.

 

Moreover, HMRC’s silence on the scale of the problem is deafening. How many workers have been wrongly billed? How many have paid without realising the charge was defunct? And why, nearly a year after the abolition, are HMRC’s systems still churning out these errors? The agency’s lack of transparency only fuels suspicion that this is not a minor oversight but a systemic failure affecting thousands.

The Bigger Picture

This blunder comes at a time when trust in HMRC is already fraying. The self-employed, who form the backbone of the UK’s economy, have long complained about the agency’s heavy-handed tactics, from aggressive tax investigations to delays in processing legitimate claims. The Class 2 NI debacle is just the latest in a string of missteps that erode confidence in HMRC’s ability to manage the tax system fairly and efficiently. If the agency can’t implement a simple policy change without causing chaos, how can it be trusted to handle more complex reforms, like the ongoing adjustments to Class 4 NI or the digitisation of tax services?

 

The government’s decision to abolish Class 2 NI was meant to signal support for the self-employed, a group that has faced economic headwinds from Brexit to the cost-of-living crisis. But HMRC’s incompetence has turned this gesture into a hollow promise, leaving workers to bear the cost of its failures. The agency’s inability to adapt its systems to reflect legislative changes raises serious questions about its fitness for purpose in a modern economy.

A Call for Accountability

HMRC must take immediate action to rectify this scandal. First, it should issue an apology to affected workers and publicly disclose the number of erroneous bills sent out. Second, it must proactively refund all incorrect charges without requiring taxpayers to jump through hoops. Third, and most critically, HMRC needs to overhaul its systems to prevent such errors from recurring. This means investing in robust IT infrastructure, improving staff training, and prioritising taxpayer experience over bureaucratic convenience.

 

For self-employed workers caught in this mess, the advice is clear but frustrating: check your tax bills carefully, and if you’ve been charged Class 2 NI contributions for 2024/25, contact HMRC to demand a correction. You may need to apply for a refund using the online service or form CA8480, but don’t let HMRC’s incompetence cost you time and money. And to the government: it’s time to hold HMRC accountable. An agency that bills workers for a tax that doesn’t exist isn’t just incompetent—it’s unfit to serve the public it claims to represent.

In the meantime, self-employed workers deserve better than to be pawns in HMRC’s game of administrative roulette. This fiasco is a stark reminder that when it comes to managing the UK’s tax system, HMRC is not just dropping the ball—it’s throwing it into the wrong court altogether.

Tax does have to be taxing.



HMRC Is Shite (www.hmrcisshite.com), also available via the domain www.hmrconline.com, is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

The £61M IR35 Blunder: How Poorly Drafted Legislation is Crippling ITV and the Creative Sector

In a week where ITV announced 200 redundancies in its Daytime division to cut costs, a far larger financial threat looms over the broadcaster. According to ITV’s 2024 annual report, a potential £61 million tax bill from HMRC, linked to the controversial IR35 and off-payroll working rules, dwarfs the savings sought through layoffs. This liability, twice the amount ITV aims to save through redundancies and equivalent to wiping out its 11% year-on-year profit (EBITA) increase, underscores the catastrophic consequences of poorly drafted tax legislation on Britain’s creative industries.

The IR35 Debacle: A Legislative Misstep

Introduced in 2000 and significantly reformed in 2017 and 2021, IR35 was designed to ensure that self-employed workers or those operating through intermediaries, like personal service companies (PSCs), pay taxes comparable to employees when their working arrangements resemble employment. The intent was to tackle tax avoidance, but the execution has been a masterclass in bureaucratic overreach and ambiguity.

 

The ITV case highlights the legislation’s flaws. The £61 million liability, dating back to 2016, likely stems from HMRC’s retrospective assessments of freelancers and contractors hired by ITV, many of whom are sole traders or work through intermediaries. The creative sector, reliant on flexible, project-based talent, has been hit hardest by IR35’s vague definitions and inconsistent enforcement. ITV’s predicament is not unique but emblematic of a broader issue: IR35’s poorly crafted rules have created a minefield for businesses and freelancers alike.

A Vague and Punitive Framework

At the heart of IR35’s failure is its lack of clarity. Determining whether a worker falls “inside” or “outside” IR35 hinges on complex criteria like control, mutuality of obligation, and substitution rights. These terms are subjective and open to interpretation, leaving companies like ITV vulnerable to HMRC’s retrospective challenges. The 2021 reforms shifted the responsibility for determining IR35 status from freelancers to hiring organisations in the private sector, placing an immense compliance burden on businesses. For ITV, this has translated into a £61 million sword of Damocles, threatening financial stability.

 

The legislation’s retrospective nature is particularly egregious. HMRC’s ability to pursue tax liabilities back to 2016 punishes companies for decisions made in good faith under unclear guidelines. ITV, like many in the media industry, relies on a flexible workforce of presenters, producers, and technical staff. These workers often operate as freelancers to meet the industry’s project-based demands. Yet, IR35’s blunt approach fails to account for the nuances of creative work, where short-term, specialised engagements are the norm, not the exception.

The Creative Industry’s Collateral Damage

ITV’s £61 million liability is a stark reminder of IR35’s chilling effect on the creative sector. Freelancers, fearing misclassification, face reduced opportunities as companies scale back hiring to avoid tax risks. The redundancies at ITV’s Daytime division, while framed as cost-cutting, reflect a broader trend of risk-averse restructuring. The creative industries, a cornerstone of the UK economy, thrive on agility and innovation—qualities stifled by IR35’s rigid framework.

 

The financial impact is staggering. ITV’s potential tax bill exceeds its cost-saving measures and wipes out its profit growth, threatening investment in new content and jobs. Smaller production companies, with fewer resources to navigate IR35 compliance, face even greater risks, potentially driving consolidation or closures in an already competitive sector.

A Call for Reform

The ITV case is a clarion call for IR35 reform. The legislation’s lack of precision, retrospective enforcement, and disproportionate penalties have created a climate of fear and uncertainty. To address this, policymakers must:

 

1. Clarify Definitions: Provide clear, industry-specific guidelines on what constitutes “inside” versus “outside” IR35, reducing reliance on subjective interpretation.
2. Limit Retrospective Claims: Cap HMRC’s ability to pursue historic liabilities, protecting businesses that acted in good faith.
3. Support Freelancers: Introduce exemptions or simplified processes for sectors like media, where freelance work is intrinsic to operations.
4. Reduce Compliance Burdens: Streamline IR35 assessments to ease the administrative load on businesses, particularly SMEs.

Conclusion

ITV’s £61 million tax liability is not just a corporate headache; it’s a symptom of IR35’s fundamental flaws. Poorly drafted and punitively enforced, the legislation is strangling the creative sector, forcing layoffs, stifling innovation, and threatening financial stability. As HMRC’s net tightens, the government must act to reform IR35 before its collateral damage irreparably harms one of Britain’s most vibrant industries. The creative sector deserves better than a tax regime that punishes flexibility and ambition.

Word count: 320

Tax does have to be taxing.



HMRC Is Shite (www.hmrcisshite.com), also available via the domain www.hmrconline.com, is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"