tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post4835434574452820783..comments2024-03-29T06:52:40.745+00:00Comments on HMRC Is Shite: ShabbyKen Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13568488818950912374noreply@blogger.comBlogger93125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-84527361996523583752011-12-31T14:24:53.173+00:002011-12-31T14:24:53.173+00:00Ooh mee so stupid! Mee HMRC public servant mee can...Ooh mee so stupid! Mee HMRC public servant mee can't possibly know how outside world works!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-9187267327524609162011-12-31T13:55:00.188+00:002011-12-31T13:55:00.188+00:00"or in simple terms HMRC callers pay for the ..."or in simple terms HMRC callers pay for the whole telephony service ta no cost to HMRC"<br /><br />And how would this differ from HMRC providing a telephone service on a local number? E.g. 01 or 02? The customer would still be calling HMRC on a telephone service and HMRC still wouldn't be paying the cost of the call.<br /><br />When you ring your local garage on an 01 or 02 number, do you go in to a tirade that the cost of the phonecall you made in your enquiry is swallowing your income? Do you ask for a refund of the 'indirect benefit' of them not being charged for the call you made to them to be subtracted from your invoice?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-46149712909482024152011-12-31T13:42:47.822+00:002011-12-31T13:42:47.822+00:00"yet when I have a dispute (which ends in HMR..."yet when I have a dispute (which ends in HMRC owing me a refund) cahrge penalties and send in the bailiffs." (sic)<br /><br />Let me guess. You are/were still SA when you changed your address without telling HMRC and are 'suddenly surprised' at a point in the future when the department now has a correct address?<br /><br />You would get nowhere with a private company with that attitude so why should HMRC be any different?<br /><br />I thought HMRC were supposed to emulate private sector customer service practises based on the pure excellence that the private sector apparently turns out on a daily basis according to the customer service fascists on this site.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-85553513674641217262011-12-31T13:24:37.772+00:002011-12-31T13:24:37.772+00:00It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclin...It was six men of Indostan<br />To learning much inclined,<br />Who went to see the Elephant<br />(Though all of them were blind),<br />That each by observation<br />Might satisfy his mind <br /><br />So oft in theologic wars,<br />The disputants, I ween,<br />Rail on in utter ignorance<br />Of what each other mean,<br />And prate about an Elephant<br />Not one of them has been or seen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-3190340282819128722011-12-31T12:50:07.875+00:002011-12-31T12:50:07.875+00:00@28 December 2011 15:31 and @28 December 2011 21:4...@28 December 2011 15:31 and @28 December 2011 21:49<br /><br />Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_contextAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-62465099621917800172011-12-31T12:04:52.115+00:002011-12-31T12:04:52.115+00:00http://www.buyingsolutions.gov.uk/catalogue/suppli...http://www.buyingsolutions.gov.uk/catalogue/suppliers.html?contract_name=Telecom+Networks+-+Voice+Calls+and+Lines&funnel_id=723<br /><br />Notice how HMRC and several thousand doctors surgeries aren't listed here. Which, if using the logic applied by the poster at 28 December 2011 15:31 and @28 December 2011 21:49 hey should be.<br /><br />Wot. Telephone services provided to the government are competetive? What was that about fact checking? Or is it too difficult to admit that you were obfuscating? (A common practice in the private sector if my two recent 0844 calls - a proper actual revenue sharing number - are anything to go by.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-46880104982415399162011-12-29T13:31:32.695+00:002011-12-29T13:31:32.695+00:0029 December 2011 12:51
I agree with you and 12:33...29 December 2011 12:51<br /><br />I agree with you and 12:33 poster. In any other country you would be frowned upon by your peers for not paying your tax but here it seems to be applauded. Then they have the cheek to complain they are penalised. <br /><br />Knob headsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-11408182132571694852011-12-29T13:30:38.657+00:002011-12-29T13:30:38.657+00:00Well it seems full transcripts of FOI requests are...Well it seems full transcripts of FOI requests aren't allowed on this site so I will link it instead.<br /><br />http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/60784/response/154577/attach/html/3/Response.pdf.html<br /><br />It demonstrates that what people are selectively posting here is not the same as the FOI request.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-70504966351022905712011-12-29T13:00:35.559+00:002011-12-29T13:00:35.559+00:00WAAAH! WAAAH! WAAAH! HMRC didn't babysit me! W...WAAAH! WAAAH! WAAAH! HMRC didn't babysit me! WAAAAAAAAAAAH!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-16841484581258747712011-12-29T12:57:38.675+00:002011-12-29T12:57:38.675+00:00The front of the P35 even directs people who think...The front of the P35 even directs people who think they may not have to file a return on the front of the P35!<br /><br />"If you think that you do not need to make a return:<br />• go to www.hmrc.gov.uk/paye/payroll/year-end/<br />no-annual-return.htm<br />• contact your HMRC office and let them know. This <br />will avoid the unnecessary issue of reminders and <br />penalty notices."<br /><br />How much more hand-holding do people on this site expect?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-64411814573185912082011-12-29T12:51:50.132+00:002011-12-29T12:51:50.132+00:00@29 December 2011 12:33
It's not even about p...@29 December 2011 12:33<br /><br />It's not even about paying their taxes on time. In this case it's about reporting the fact that payments they have made are accurate to their best knowledge and belief. <br /><br />If a company had one employee under PAYE (in the case illustrated) during the year and they have been making deductions correctly, how hard can this be?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-18390605665273314522011-12-29T12:40:45.112+00:002011-12-29T12:40:45.112+00:00@29 December 2011 12:33
No no NO you cannot say t...@29 December 2011 12:33<br /><br />No no NO you cannot say that here! Thousands of customer service fascists who ordered the moon on a stick despite it not being in the catalogue will descend upon you.<br /><br />Then they will tell you that what they want is actually the opposite of what they want and a cat that belonged to a fellow named Erwin Schrödinger will disappear inside a box.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-61920359282051458162011-12-29T12:33:09.271+00:002011-12-29T12:33:09.271+00:00Going back to the subject of the thread, pay all o...Going back to the subject of the thread, pay all of your taxes on time and you won't be charged a penalty - Simple. It is not the fault of HMRC or it's employees if you don't. I would imagine the angry posters here can even understand that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-1014887988042365372011-12-29T11:32:13.382+00:002011-12-29T11:32:13.382+00:00@Pettifogging
Isn't it rather ironic that you...@Pettifogging<br /><br />Isn't it rather ironic that you chose this turn of phrase before launching in to a diatribe about 0845 numbers?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-524649974587643482011-12-29T10:47:45.369+00:002011-12-29T10:47:45.369+00:00@28 December 2011 21:15
Ditto@28 December 2011 21:15<br /><br />DittoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-24075783754787158422011-12-29T09:48:32.452+00:002011-12-29T09:48:32.452+00:00By the loose definition here, you could say that h...By the loose definition here, you could say that having a gift voucher for 20% off of something could be considered as indirect revenue.<br /><br />What would you rather happen? HMRC went for a deal where it didn't get value for money? <br /><br />What do you actually want? Seriously. You appear to be arguing that the phone service should be provided at great expense to HMRC? Except of course the expense would be taken from elsewhere.... HMRC is moving to 0345 numbers anyway so this line of conversation is like pissing in the wind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-34620078978782246382011-12-29T09:36:54.681+00:002011-12-29T09:36:54.681+00:00@28 December 2011 21:49
I will, I really hate it ...@28 December 2011 21:49<br /><br />I will, I really hate it when commercial companies use actual revenue sharing numbers like 0844 just to discuss with them a mistake they have made.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-55262198901537576622011-12-29T00:55:55.675+00:002011-12-29T00:55:55.675+00:00“This takes account of the in-payments HMRC's ...“This takes account of the in-payments HMRC's telephony service provider receives from licensed operators carrying 0845 calls.”<br /><br />None of this suggests HMRC receive income from the calls.<br /><br />What do you people actually want? Every time you have a query about tax, HMRC staff who are paid below average wages for their knowledge should provide a dinner service with silver cutlery? In America people are expected to pay for written answers from the IRS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-10719989702646398572011-12-29T00:39:49.510+00:002011-12-29T00:39:49.510+00:00@28 December 2011 21:49
I'm really really sor...@28 December 2011 21:49<br /><br />I'm really really sorry that HMRC don't have a number that starts with 01 or 02 but it's not an uncommon problem. <br /><br /><br />I've rung two companies today who are not part of the civil service but who use 0844 which is a revenue sharing number. Both calls were to identify why they have a problem yet one provider insisted everything was ok whereas the other provider read something off a screen and said it wasn't ok.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-78893990992589829142011-12-29T00:26:03.535+00:002011-12-29T00:26:03.535+00:00"'do their jobs to an adequate level then..."'do their jobs to an adequate level then go home again' says it all.. or perhaps 'adequate level' is quantifiable... not in HMRC.".<br /><br />'Adequate' means giving the right answer whether the customer likes it or not. I'm really sorry that customer service fascists on this site fail to understand this. I'm really sorry HMRC operates within the law. That makes us 'jobsworths' doesn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-40997146966090287162011-12-29T00:18:53.238+00:002011-12-29T00:18:53.238+00:00@28 December 2011 21:26
You used to have local ta...@28 December 2011 21:26<br /><br />You used to have local tax offices. But that was 'waste'.<br /><br />You used to have local enquiry centres. But that was 'waste'.<br /><br />You used to have tax officers who dealt with an allocation of taxpayers. For large companies that was an alpha split. That was 'waste'.<br /><br />From the letters that I receive, now people aren't happy that HMRC staff across the country can deal with a persons tax affairs and would prefer one person dealt with it. So which group of millions of people should HMRC pander to? The people who get an answer from a different office than the one they are accustomed to? Or should they take a step back to 10 years ago where people were dealt with on an individual basis and if the HMRC staffer who dealt with that person leaves/retires/dies the individual knowledge of the customer leaves with them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-21431259984543400092011-12-29T00:04:22.070+00:002011-12-29T00:04:22.070+00:00@28 December 2011 17:42
How much does HMRC receiv...@28 December 2011 17:42<br /><br />How much does HMRC receive?<br /><br />NOTHING! <br /><br />Because it isn't an OCP!!!!!!<br /><br />If anything HMRC pays for the calls it receives as the receiver of the calls. Nothing in the ofcom report suggests that HMRC is an OCP.<br /><br />An FOI request wasn't enough for you? You choose to beleive otherwise. HMRC can't help you there, unless you set yourself up as a self employed conspiracy theorist. In which case you can deduct the cost of tinfoil hats as an expense, but it can only be deducted against actual income... shame....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-11477714083250990242011-12-28T23:55:29.233+00:002011-12-28T23:55:29.233+00:00@28 December 2011 21:49
HMRC aren't identifie...@28 December 2011 21:49<br /><br />HMRC aren't identified as an OCP in that document. You have just decided that they are. A.2.85 doesn't imply HMRC receive any revenue stream because...... guess what? they. like Doctors Sugeries (also identified in the document). aren't an OCP. <br /><br />I seem to recall a conversation here about Doctors surgeries being an example of customer service on this site not long ago in which a poster identified themselves as being able to get straight through to the GP service.<br /><br />@28 December 2011 22:03<br /><br />Well here we have some understanding... You want a super intelligent workforce who only use that knowledge when the customer perceives themselves to be right and not to use it when the customer is actually wrong.<br /><br />You want all this to happen when a cunservative government is in power, where individualism is key? *Slow Clap*.... *Slow Clap*.... *Slow Clap*.... repeat ad nauseum.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-41013313947452044122011-12-28T22:03:17.933+00:002011-12-28T22:03:17.933+00:0028 December 2011 14:47
"I don't think yo...28 December 2011 14:47<br /><br />"I don't think you understood what the point I was making was."<br /><br />Guess what 100% correct, <br /><br />if you don't say what you mean <br />WE DON"T UNDERSTAND. <br /><br />SORRY our fault for not understanding what this really means "And how do you have ongoing professional development without training? "<br /><br />HMRC customers aren't psychic either!<br /><br />and you think the following is a serious question worthy of a sensible reply ?<br /><br />"Regardless of how this learning is achieved. Which would you rather have. Front line staff who have lots of knowledge who will be more able to share with the department when they find something suspect or those who come in, do their jobs to an adequate level then go home again?<br /><br />'do their jobs to an adequate level then go home again' says it all.. or perhaps 'adequate level' is quantifiable... not in HMRC.<br /><br />tell you what I'll vote for "Front line staff who have lots of knowledge..." regardless of how it is used. (and not using it, every day in every instance is not a sin, it is OK to know more than what the enquiry is about)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29600742611858461.post-76586077131248487812011-12-28T21:49:31.320+00:002011-12-28T21:49:31.320+00:0028 December 2011 16:04
"What's all this ...28 December 2011 16:04<br /><br />"What's all this crap about HMRC being an originating communications provider?"<br /><br />were you born brain dead or something HMRC trained you into?<br /><br />IT"S WHAT OFCOM SAID (HMRC is an OCP, page 148 if my memory serves me well, which it doesn't) not my quote<br /><br />the source reference is there in the post<br />source<br />http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/simplifying-non-geo-numbers/summary/non-geo.pdf<br /><br />kick off before checking your facts... sounds familiar<br /><br />oh and if you really want to make a contribution, it is part of an Ofcom consultation process (recently extended)... I'm sure they would be delighted to hear from you, but no doubt you wont understand 'consultation' either.<br /><br />the clue is also in the source reference<br /><br />stakeholders.ofcom<br /><br />simplifying-non-geo-numbers<br /><br />consultations<br /><br />want me to wipe your arse?<br />(i've some grade 800)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com