HMRC Is Shite

HMRC Is Shite
Dedicated to the taxpayers of Britain, and the employees of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), who have to endure the monumental shambles that is HMRC.

Tuesday, 13 December 2011


The ICAEW recently reported that a number of tax agents have visited HMRC offices to have a look around. The feedback from the visits to the post processing offices was positive:

Quotes from the agents:

Without exception all the staff with whom I spoke, probably over 30, appeared to be well satisfied with their job, manager, training and workload.”

“From what we saw and were told, everything in the call centre, correspondence handling and referrals was running very smoothly.”

“The staff we met seemed very efficient, motivated and on the ball. We were told that things are now much better than they were a year ago, and it certainly seemed so.”

“The national unit dealing with referrals from the Agents Dedicated Line appeared to have good procedures in place. The more simple matters referred to this unit were dealt with by properly qualified members of staff but anything more complex was referred daily to a higher level of experienced staff and strenuous efforts were being made to respond to agents on a timely basis.”

Well then, everything now appears to be working tickedy boo!

Comments from front line staff in the post rooms are very welcome.

The ICAEW then posed some questions to HMRC, to which we look forward to seeing the answers:

- If the processes are working efficiently as reported, what is causing the delays in post?

- Were the offices visited those where the processes are good?

- Are the recent reports isolated instances, or relating to a particular tax? If so, which taxes?

In the meantime, as part of the apparent ongoing bonhomie between agents, ICAEW and HMRC, the ICAEW have published a few tips as to how to communicate with HMRC:

"Our volunteers have identified some tips for members, for contacting HMRC.

Is your issue a complaint or are you trying to resolve a client issue?

It may well be that you want to write in order to complain about the service you have received if HMRC has not replied to a letter. However, if your priority is to sort out a client issue we suggest you first use the Agent Dedicated Lines and Agent Account Manager (AAM) service, and only if you still have issues then use the complaints channel.

If you do want to make a complaint, indicate this clearly on the complaint letter, stating the tax concerned, eg SA and PAYE, CT, CIS, debt issues, VAT.

To find out more see:

Are you sending post to the correct address? 

It is very important to use the latest reference when writing to HMRC and also to quote the client’s UTR and NINo on your letters. 

On compliance cases, the address to use is on the heading of the letter from HMRC. Unsolicited post (ie post that is not a reply to an HMRC letter) for SA and PAYE should be sent to the PO Boxes listed below.

For personal SA queries:

HM Revenue & Customs
Self Assessment
PO Box 4000

CF14 8HR

For queries relating to PAYE for individuals:

HM Revenue & Customs
Pay As You Earn
PO Box 1970

L75 1WX

For contact details for other taxes listed below, and more information generally, see HMRC: Dedicated helplines and contacts for authorised agents

  • SA and PAYE for individuals
  • Agent dedicated and priority lines
  • PAYE for employers and construction industry
  • Corporation tax queries
  • VAT, Customs, Excise and international trade queries
  • HMRC online services helpdesks
  • Resolving problems or making complaints
  • Specialist HMRC departments and finding other contacts
  • Agent account managers"

Please feel free to comment on the efficacy, or otherwise, of the above advice (based on your own experiences).

Tax does have to be taxing.

UK EXPATS: Reduce tax on UK Pensions
HMRC QROPS provider. Unlock your UK pension and access a 25% lump sum today.

Quote ID code "ABC" when contacting a QROPS specialist.

Professional Cover Against the Threat of Costly TAX and VAT Investigations

What is TAXWISE?

TAXWISE is a tax-fee protection service that will pay up to £75,000 towards your accountant's fees in the event of an HM Revenue & Customs full enquiry or dispute.

To find out more, please use this link Taxwise

Tax Investigation for Dummies, by Nick Morgan, provides a good and easy to read guide for anyone caught up in an HMRC tax investigation. A must read for any Self Assessment taxpayer.

Click the link to read about: Tax Investigation for Dummies

HMRC Is Shite (, also available via the domain, is brought to you by "The Living Brand"


  1. well that's just dandy.... but what about the rest of the population that don't have an agent?

    how many incorrect tax codes?

  2. When the tax agents visited, HMRC managers, would have been watching and listening in the background. Or the managers little agents would have reported later that so and so wasnt too happy with the way things were being managed.

    Thats why staff "appeared to be well satisfied with their job, manager, training and workload.”

  3. Where did they go Parliament Street?

  4. @13 December 2011 13:22

    Define incorrect tax code - as it is normally only as good as the information provided by the person (to whom the tax code is issued) during the year the tax code was issued.

  5. "Define incorrect tax code - as it is normally only as good as the information provided by the person (to whom the tax code is issued) during the year the tax code was issued."

    What if the HMRC system decides to take into account jobs that people left years before and told HMRC about?

  6. The agents would have met hand picked arselickers all with their Pacesetter certificates. The visit would have been heavily stage managed. As an aside, an Excomm member recently made a similar stage managed visit to my office and only 'approved' staff were permitted to speak to that person.

  7. @13 December 2011 18:36

    Can you be more specific?

  8. @21:38

    @18:36 here.

    I am referring to the new PAYE system that picked up and used information about jobs that people had left more than 6 years before. The system then issued codes based on this information as if it was still live. Even though the old system showed a date of leaving.

    Maybe you could explain how this is the tax payers fault.

    I accept that tax payers do give incorrect information but I do not accept it is on the same scale as the problem I detailed above.

  9. 22:27 - The issue was with works numbers as I recall employments were setup for example as 1234 by the employer initially but the later filed p14 showed 001234. The system interpreted these as separate employments and started them up again. Working through the 09/10 reconciliations this problem is still occurring in extremely high frequency and the main cause of non-automatic reconciliations as there are multiple employments on anyone record (as well as poor information regarding benefit claims from DWP). If you could see the state of information sent by employers you'd be surprised. I'm not one of these 'arse-lickers' I do my work the way it should be done regardless of guidance and I'll admit HMRC error without hesitation but from telephone and processing experience I'd say errors I see are generally 60% Employer 25% HMRC 15% Individual.

  10. @22:57

    I think you will find the problem was a lot simpler than you think.

    The data was transferred incorrectly and because the system was not fully tested it sent out incorrect codes.

    I understand your point about the employer number formats but if a leaving date was present in the old system then it should have been reflected in the new system.

    I don't doubt your comments about information supplied as I have worked on many large scale IT projects myself over the years but I have always found that proper testing prevents large cock ups.

  11. It doesn't matter what the issue is – while agents have dedicated telephone lines and high level of service, the taxpayer is left with 62% of telephone calls unanswered, letters unanswered, offices closed and unable to contact HMRC – read the reports (not my words)!

    Two level service!

    One for agents and the rest can whistle dixie...

    AND this is not 'a go' at staff, it is the Government and MANAGEMENT (joke) at fault as we all know.

  12. @13:11

    Maybe those of us who deal with our own tax affairs should register ourselves as our own agent?

  13. @13 December 2011 22:27

    Aah I see what you mean. It seems strange that it's only being picked up now when the system has been in place for over 20 months.

    Normally the record would only automatically become 'live' again if an employer submitted a P14 (without a leaving date) for the last tax year (e.g. 5/4/11 in this case) even if this was a P14 declaring no income.

    @14 December 2011 13:11

    Unfortunately it's difficult to see a way around this. As has been stated on many occasions here, the majority of staff who answer letters/phonecalls do not have qualifications in accountancy. Only those who work in compliance are given training to scrutinise accounts - and I'm sorry but the cold hard facts are that people have to bear some responsibility for their own tax affairs regardless of whether they are taxed under PAYE. Employing a tax agent doesn't mean someone is absolved of that responsibility.

    Also, please do not be under any illusion that if someone has an agent that they are getting a better service. It is my understanding that the processes were brought in because of agents demanding compensation from HMRC for time lost on phone calls etc.

    Also there are those who set themselves up as agents but in effect are even less qualified than HMRC staff to deal with queries but end up reaping the benefit for dealing with queries that Inland Revenue enquiry centres and customer service teams (IR used to run one-stop-shops around towns before this was identified as 'waste') used to be able to deal with on a daily basis.

    There is something slightly positive in that for those who cannot afford representation, HMRC has made agreements with the likes of TOP (Tax Help for Older People) so that it's not such a raw deal for those who are able to seek help to manage their own tax affairs adequately.

  14. "Aah I see what you mean. It seems strange that it's only being picked up now when the system has been in place for over 20 months."

    Actually the problem was picked up shortly after the system went live (shame really as it should have been picked up before it went live) but HMRC staff lied about there not being any problems with the system. Unfortunately for HMRC most people outside HMRC saw through the lies.

  15. @13 December 2011 22:27

    what planet you on?

    "the cold hard facts are that people have to bear some responsibility for their own tax affairs "


    so if you don't have an agent how do you deal with HMRC when you have a query? Apparently it's all our fault (as always) for having a query – when all we want to do is pay the correct amount.

    we accept 100% responsibility but we too are not experts in HMRC/Government tax policy and the constant changes.

    ultimately tax returns insist on them nbbeing 100 correct and accurate or (legal) action will be taken.

    so all 'customers' want to do is ensure the information supplied is correct. To suggest tax payers are in some doing something other than accepting responsibility for their tax affairs, is offensive but also highlights the very problem with the people HMRC employs and allegedly 'manages'.

    @13 December 2011 22:27
    your comments are an insult and you should be ashamed of yourself

    when are you HMRC people going to get off your 'guilt/persecution trip'?

  16. @13 December 2011 13:22

    "Define incorrect tax code"

    I cannot vouch for this (I too am not an expert) but it is out there –

    "Tens of thousands of pensioners will have to pay back an average £800 in underpaid tax following another HM Revenue and Customs tax code error.
    Some 146,000 pensioners will have to pay back money after receiving the wrong tax codes for the current 2010/11 financial year, meaning they paid too little.

    The problem is that the state pension element of their income was not correctly taken into account by HMRC when working out total earnings, creating the error.

    After HMRC upgraded to a new computer system last September, it spotted around 6 million people had been given the wrong tax code over the past three tax years, with 1.4 million having to pay back tax.

    This same group of 146,000 pensioners also owed tax from 08/09 and 09/10 tax years. However, HMRC has written off these demands."


    The UK's top tax official has apologised to the 1.4 million people facing an unexpected tax bill.

    Asked if the numbers involved were extraordinary - with 4.3m people having paid too much tax and 1.4 million having to pay money back after paying too little, he said: "I don't think they are extraordinary. There is a need for reconciliation every year. (Hartnet)

    'Customers' fault, again.

  17. HMRC says about 4.3 million taxpayers will receive rebates after over-paying through the Pay as You Earn (PAYE) system.

    define 'tax code'

    "customers fault"

  18. To @14 December 2011 22:17

    I am the poster @13 December 2011 22:27, if you find my post offensive then you have either got your posting times confused or you have a real problem with facts.

    Just in case you got the correct post details I can assure you I feel no shame for speaking the truth about what goes on within HMRC.

  19. @14 December 2011 22:17

    S7 TMA1970 implies that several 'customers' have had 41 years to fulfill their legal obligations.

    I'm sorry if a such a period is unsatisfactory. Perhaps we should review this in 2053 so that HMRC meets its customer service obligations of acheiving 100% satisfaction.

  20. @14 December 2011 22:26

    In this statistic, does it define whether the pensioners returned the 'pension coding form' sent to them or simply ignored it as 'another burearatic form from those idiots at the revenue who have a crystal ball to gaze in to to when estimating pensions?

    <Dr Cox> "Help me to help you Help me to help you Help me to help you Help me to help you" </Dr Cox>

    It seems to me that the people who are affected are those who have left it until after the event has happened despite warnings to the contrary. Once again, way to go baby-boomers.

  21. Right.

    How about this is settled once and for all?

    HMRC deals with a vast cross section of the public and, due to its size, it's own staff are also made up of a cross section of the public. Some are based in affluent areas, some are based in not so affluent areas.

    As a member of staff at HMRC I have dealt with a number of pieces of correspondence that have made me feel genuinely upset (to the point of crying) for the person who has written such a letter. These haven't been 'guilt-trip' type letters, but they have given great detail as to why their income tax affairs have taken a back seat for the time being. They are genuine pleas to a government department to exercise discretion. Depending on the type of work I have been doing I have referred these upwards but sometimes it falls on deaf ears. If I am in a position to exercise discretion then I will (ab)use that even if the referral suggests that I shouldn't. These pieces of correspondence however, are in the minority (thank goodness).

    The correspondence that comes through to HMRC as of late uses the kind of language you'd expect teenagers to use.... "I know my rights", "I'm PAYE!!!!! my employer takes care of my entire life", "You didn't take in to account the thing that I never told you about in the first place", "Surely you know my wages every month?", "Surely you know I've had a payrise?", "Surely you know I don't have a company car any more one of your tax officials must have spotted me not driving it", "Surely you know my business income has taken a downturn?", "Surely you know I don't have this/that/the other type of income any more despite me not telling you this at any point". Then you get the moronic "I don't understand tax". Fair enough, but it's not beyond reasonable comprehension in this country that if you receive income that isn't taxed it may be worthwhile checking out whether it needs to be reported. Is that not a simple thing for adults in the UK to realise? If it isn't then we are just placing ourselves as having more stupid adults than those who occupy the rest of the western world.

    No. HMRC doesn't know everything about you, in fact why would you want HMRC to know everything about you? We don't live in a police state. So stop whining and realise that HMRC isn't your accountant/nanny.

  22. and by (ab)use I mean to do anything I can to ensure that person isn't let down by the system and receives a fair enough deal from HMRC if it's within my remit to do so.

    Sorry I know to several people on this site that customer service should equal being a complete whore apparently, but this is a government department. We have work to do.

  23. and to those who equate having a remit to being a jobsworth, just go f*** yourselves unless you can provide evidence that you yourself have done anything further to add that shows how you have personally provided the platinum customer service that you so easily allude to in your posts.

  24. @20:05

    The trouble is a lot of us do understand tax and how it works but dealing with you guys is where the problems start.

  25. @15 December 2011 22:36

    Rhubarb Rhubarb Rhubarb

  26. @15 December 2011 22:36

    If you have such an excellent knowledge of tax why is it a problem dealing with HMRC? Make your mind up? Either we are 'incompetent fools' for not dealing with something properly or 'up to our knees in bureaucracy' for dealing with something properly.

  27. "If you have such an excellent knowledge of tax why is it a problem dealing with HMRC?"

    Because you have the ability to make a problem out of a simple enquiry. And knowing how the tax system works with regard to my affairs does not mean I never have to contact HMRC.

    "Make your mind up? Either we are 'incompetent fools' for not dealing with something properly or 'up to our knees in bureaucracy' for dealing with something properly."

    I will have to bow to your greater knowledge as to why the service you provide is so bad.

  28. @16 December 2011 00:38

    I'd see your doctor about that chip on your shoulder.

  29. @16 December 2011 01:40

    I took your advice and made an appointment with the doc. I got straight through on the phone which was nice, asked for an appointment and got one.

    You may not recognise this scenario but out here we call it service.

    Have a good Christmas and a happy new year.

  30. this says it all, as do most of the HMRC staff comments

    "So stop whining and realise that HMRC isn't your accountant/nanny."

    so if you have a query, although we are public servants and funded by the tax payer, don't bother us with your enquiries?

    No wonder the telephones never get answered... why bother us (HMRC Ssaff) we are far too bus yanyway and can't be bothered to answer your stupid (or valid) enquiry is clearly the attitude.

    Sack the lot and get the unemployed in!

    Oh we can't do that can we because we can't have competition like the private sector where these employees wouldn't last a day – go off sick with stress.

    Go sob in your pension plans.

  31. @16 December 2011 13:46

    There is a difference between a valid query (a question) and simply moaning and questioning a process that has been in place for decades and telling the individual staff member that they must be wrong because they (the customer says so).

    PS loving the stereotypes created by the media of civil servants. I laughed so much I spilt my 22nd cup of tea and my bowler-hat fell off.

    @16 December 2011 10:03

    So your GP's surgery is fully staffed then I take it? Not like HMRC.

  32. @16 December 2011 13:46

    and Kudo's for taking the sentence out of context as well.

    Even if you 'sacked the lot' an 'got the unemployed in', it wouldn't stop people from being responsible for their own tax affairs. Yes there are customer service considerations but it doesn't mean HMRC is responsible for your tax affairs. The customer service equation that is often used on this site is quite often based on ridiculous paradigms of expectation/entitlement.

    HMRC can't guarantee your tax affairs will be 100% correct.

    DWP can't guarantee a 100% success rate in your job application.

    Land Registry cannot sell your house for you.

    MOJ cannot win your dispute on your behalf.

    MOD cannot win the war for you.

    NOM's/The prison service can't guarantee someone won't re-offend

    NATS (national air traffic control service) can't guarantee a pilot won't fall asleep and end up in a mid-air collision (although they would probably take steps to clear the airspace).

    UKBA can't guarantee that someone who has been cleared for entry in to the UK without any prior convictions doesn't subsequently become a drug-dealer.

    The NHS can't guarantee you won't die when you take too many pills.

    The fire service cannot guarantee your house won't burn down when you pour gallons of petrol all over the place.

    Teachers can't guarantee that your child will succeed.

    Public services are there to provide assistance, not run your life for you. Ken runs a seperate site called Nanny knows best where he argues against such state interference. If I took the customer service expectation to the same extremes most people appear to take it to on this site, I could quite happily come up with some stupidly unrealistic expectations...

    "Tesco's never helped me find a new car even though I bought insurance off of them. I wanted a Lotus Esprit for the price of a mini and they said "That's not what car insurance provision is for". I demand compensation equal to the price of a Lotus Esprit for their failure to act on my customer service demand."

    "Sainsbury's do not run a zoo so I can't buy a zebra off them. I demand that Sainsbury's sell zebras because I (as one customer) have demanded it. Surely if they don't sell Zebra's then they are not fit for purpose, I expect more from my superstore".

  33. @@16 December 2011 10:03

    Well, they are looking to privatise the NHS, so you will soon be looking forward to the following GP service.

    Receptionist in a nationwide call-centre: "Thank you for calling UK Health PLC, how may I assist you?".

    You: "I'd like an appointment please?"

    Receptionist: "Certainly, and whereabouts and which doctor would you like?".

    You: "I'd like the same doctor I've had for several years at Margate".

    Receptionist: "I'm afraid that doctor has moved on to a different contract with a company that competes with ours, so I cannot recommend his services. However, there is a similar doctor in Crawley".

    You: "But that's miles away, isn't there anyone nearer?".

    Receptionist: "No, but if you upgrade to our premium service, the extra cost of providing your choice of doctor under a seperate contract will be offset by the extra cost of your contributions."

  34. @16 December 2011 13:46

    You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    * First you complain that the public service of HMRC isn't up to scratch.

    * You then go on about people not being able to afford accountants, but state that civil servants are useless.

    *Then you state the private sector could do better. Well, where would the private sector experts come from. Yes, you guessed it? The same accoutants that you previously stated you couldn't afford.

    Seriously make your mind up.

  35. @16 December 2011 20:21

    And by the way I don't really care if you claim to be different people. All you are doing is collectively defeating your own argument because you have spent so long defending your stereotypes of public vs private sector workers that you don't see the trees or the wood or even the paper your daily rag is printed on, or grass, or anything in between.

  36. 16 December 2011 19:16

    "So your GP's surgery is fully staffed then I take it? Not like HMRC."

    Not having a dig at the poster but even if HMRC had double the staff it currently has but still organised itself in the same way would there be any real improvement made? you may get through on the telephone but still run into training/knowledge problems.

    @16 December 2011 20:16

    I think you will find most GP's are self employed and therefore already in the private sector.

  37. I have read through this thread and others on this site. I accept and understand the stance HMRC staff posters take in that tax payers are responsible for their own tax affairs.

    That said maybe a member of HMRC staff can answer the following question.

    Why does HMRC have so many people employed on the various advice lines when the staff seem so adamant that they are not there to assist tax payers with their tax affairs?

  38. @16 December 2011 20:28

    I agree. However, if you read the comments on this site, most people who work at HMRC who answer queries on behalf of the taxpayer are apparently stupid because the answer that the taxpayer is given isn't the same as the answer the taxpayer expected. Despite it being the correct answer. If the correct answer is given then HMRC are jobsworths.

    I also recognise that TV licensing is provided by Capita even though the authority is still dressed up as public sector. You can tell Capita until you are blue in the face that you don't have a TV but because they are a private company with a public sector contract they can continue to hound you without any kind of public reprimand because they are a private company.

    The people on this site want more privatisation apparently.

  39. @16 December 2011 20:41

    First of all, net recruitment in 2009-10 in contact centres was 3, and they dealt with an extra million or so calls in the same period.

    Second of all, staff are not adamant they are there to assist taxpayers with their affairs, however, they can't also be expected organise and plan a taxpayers affairs for them. This is where the engagement of an accountant comes in (who gets paid twice or three times the salary of a customer adviser on the telephone).

  40. @16 December 2011 20:51

    Oops freudian slip. Staff are not adamant that they should not assist taxpayers... see rest of post.

  41. 16 December 2011 20:46

    Unfortunately Capita seem to have the same sort of protection as senior civil servants when it comes to getting away with things.

  42. @16 December 2011 20:55

    Cheers for the update.

    I got your point on the first post but I am sure others would not have.

    I myself see things from both sides I run my own business so get to deal with HMRC directly. I am also the partner of a member of HMRC staff. I find it quite frustrating really because I am rarely happy with the service I get but I know why I am getting the bad service. I can assure others who read the posts on this site that HMRC front line staff do try their best but unfortunately they do not have the resources/training/systems to be able to give a better service.

    Mind you, it does make me laugh to see some posts where people try to make out HMRC is all fine and dandy.

  43. I comment an awful lot on this site and it's difficult to know what the expectation of HMRC should be.

    The people who answer your phone calls and letters are not experts on everything to do with tax. They are working class people, not trained accountants.

    It's much the same as you don't expect the travel agent who books your flight and hotel in Florida for you to be able to guarantee there will not be heavy traffic on the I-95.

    If you want HMRC staff who answer your phone calls to be trained to the level of professional accountants then unfortunately there is a trade-off. A 'leaner'... 'more qualified' department may seem like an exciting orgasmic concept to the customer service 'experts' on HMRCisshite.

    However, you need to be aware of the fact that if those who answer your calls at the first point of contact have a high level of accountancy qualifications in order to fulfil your customer service orgy, then you also need to recognise that those same highly trained individuals will also be passing a greater level of 'intelligence' on to their colleagues who investigate taxpayers.

    So... turkeys... how is the vote for an early Christmas coming along then?

  44. @16 December 2011 21:12

    I try to take the middle ground as much as possible. HMRC staff on the whole don't hate taxpayers and reasonable people don't hate HMRC staff as much as the media would like to portray.

    Ignorance seems to be the defining factor here. I feel I'm coming over all Guardianista.... Brussels Sprouts FTW!!!!!

  45. Oh we can't do that can we because we can't have competition like the private sector where these employees wouldn't last a day – go off sick with stress.

    @16 December 2011 13:46

    I have worked in the private sector. The only difference between the public and private sector it seems is that in the private sector, if you give someone the title of 'manager' they suddenly start walking around with such an inflated ego that you begin to wonder whether they've found a way to perform oral sex on themselves.

    Please also be aware that HMRC funds the private sector by way of government contracts, the system to calculate PAYE and look at employee benefits on top of their pay was more or less completely outsourced by July 2009.

    When did calculation errors become most apparent? The 2009/10 tax year? The same year things were more or less taken away from local employers sections (who work in the public sector) and input outsourced?

  46. @16 December 2011 10:03

    You know it's funny you got straight through to the doctors. I used to live in an affluent area with an NHS surgery which was in high demand so was often held in a queue waiting for a call about an appointment.

    Isn't it funny how there was such a high demand for public services from an affluent area. Capitalists expecting more public services for less investment by any chance?

  47. Also, privatising parts of of the public sector hasn't provided any better customer service for those who claim incapacity benefit who genuinely need it (read the post before you accuse all IB claimants of being 'workshy'.

    The government introduced it, ATOS implemented it, yet DWP front line staff get the blame for something they had no control over.

    But it's ok. HMRCisshite customer service experts are over on Daily Mail island fanning themselves with their favourite rag convinced they know how to solve the public sector waste e.g. getting rid those wasteful enquiry centres that helped pensioners with their tax affairs because it was a labour leftie namby pamby thing giving public services like this via wasteful public servants wasn't it?

  48. @14 December 2011 22:26

    You'll be pleased to know that as a result of RTI the DWP will be providing state pension data direct to HMRC from 2013-14 regardless of whether the pensioner forgets to send information in, so any amount of quibbling that there are not 13 four-weekly payments in a 52 week tax year (did these pensioners not take arithmetic GCE's whilst they were simultaneously fighting the war?) will be considered null and void.

  49. Did a kernel of truth kill this conversation dead?

  50. @17 December 2011 23:03

    Maybe people have better things to do than worry about your shite service all the time.

  51. @18 December 2011 17:20

    That's a shame, maybe Ken ought to close down the site if that's the way you feel.

    After all I am a 'customer' of HMRCisshite by the mere fact that I bought something using google checkout once, so whatever I say goes?

  52. All I really want is to be able to communicate with HMRC using my preferred method, i.e. email (well, of course... and have them respond using the same method), as opposed to me having to 'phone *084 numbers or long distance from abroad or having to write a letter.

  53. @7 January 2012 10:00

    Could you be more specific?

    I mean say I wasn't you and e-mailed personal information from an e-mail address that purported to be you e.g. and asked for an update.

    Would you be really happy that anyone in the world using similar technology could access sensitive information about you, virtually untraceable?

    If so my name is Prince Zig of Zog and I need you to transfer money to a foreign bank account through an untraceable wireless transfer by an approved solicitor etc etc.