Poor old HMRC, they really can't quite get the hang of addressing an envelope properly.
I guess what with the strain of losing data discs on a regular basis, they can't quite focus their minds on more mundane activities such as envelope addressing.
The Oxford mail reports that the good old boys in HMRC sent Ron Leaver and Tracey Giles a number of letters over a period of months.
So far so good.
Unfortunately, the letters contained child benefit and national insurance numbers meant for other people.
Mr Leaver, from Merton near Bicester, received over a dozen letters that were in fact meant to go to Buckinghamshire County Council.
The letters contained a veritable smorgasbord of names and NI numbers of former council employees, one even contained a cheque for £2,000.
HMRC had managed to delude themselves that the local authority, whose headquarters are in Aylesbury, was in fact based 18 miles away at a private house in a small Oxfordshire village.
Mr Leaver needless to say did point out the mistake to the ever alert HMRC, yet HMRC continued to send him the letters.
He is quoted in the Oxford Mail:
"I'm disgusted with the situation. No one has been able to tell me why they did this.
If it's happening to me is it happening to other people?
It's an absolute shambles."
Needless to say if it happens to one person, as sure as eggs are eggs, it will happen to another. Tracey Giles, from Hempton, found this out for herself. She was sent a letter meant for a Tracey Mason.
The letter was an apology for losing the data discs, and of course contained the NI and child benefit numbers of the intended recipient.
Ms Giles is now worried, not unreasonably, that someone else has her details thanks to the mind numbing incompetence of HMRC.
An HMRC spokesman said:
"We apologise for any inconvenience caused. We are currently writing to over seven million child benefit claimants. Letters are still being sent, so people shouldn't worry if they haven't yet received an apology."
Here is a free piece of advice to HMRC, the sending of the apology letters (as pointed out earlier on this site) is a major security blunder. Given that all of the letters have not yet been sent, HMRC should stop sending any more now.
Now that they have been publicly told that the apology letters represent a major security risk, not to stop sending them is criminally negligent.
www.hmrcisshite.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Friday, 30 November 2007
Thursday, 29 November 2007
Fuckwits
Congratulations to the HMRC for proving that despite things being farking awful last week, it is more than capable of making things worse.
In a rush to cover backsides, and to look contrite, HMRC sent millions of apology letters to those who had their personal details placed at risk as a result of the HMRC disc blunder.
Unfortunately this act of contrition exposed the hapless victims of HMRC incompetence to even greater risk of fraud and id theft:
Have the people in HMRC never been trained in the basics of security, fraud and id theft prevention?
Needless to say this latest screw up has brought more problems down on the heads of those claiming to run the HMRC. The Information Commissioner will now investigate this latest security lapse.
The Information Commissioner is now pursuing three inquiries into breaches of confidentiality by HMRC.
It would seem that the people running HMRC, and indeed the government itself, has little clue about the concept of security and id theft; this is the same government that wants to impose a national id card scheme on an unwilling population.
Those who don't receive a letter of apology are being asked to ring an HMRC helpline.
Congratulations to the HMRC for making matters worse and exposing 25 million people to the threat of fraud and id theft twice in two weeks, a double whammy.
Fuckwits!
www.hmrcisshite.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
In a rush to cover backsides, and to look contrite, HMRC sent millions of apology letters to those who had their personal details placed at risk as a result of the HMRC disc blunder.
Unfortunately this act of contrition exposed the hapless victims of HMRC incompetence to even greater risk of fraud and id theft:
- The postal system is notoriously open to abuse and theft (over a million letters are lost everyday)
- The apology letters contained the details on the missing discs. Thereby giving the criminals another bite of the apple
- The letters which contain names, National Insurance and child benefit numbers are being delivered to the last known addresses of the recipients.
It doesn't take a genius to realise that some of the millions of people sent these letters may have moved (1 in 10 people move each year). Therefore many of the letters containing these private details are being delivered to the wrong people.
Oh, but that's alright, HMRC are blaming the taxpayers who have moved for not keeping HMRC up to date with their moves
Have the people in HMRC never been trained in the basics of security, fraud and id theft prevention?
Needless to say this latest screw up has brought more problems down on the heads of those claiming to run the HMRC. The Information Commissioner will now investigate this latest security lapse.
The Information Commissioner is now pursuing three inquiries into breaches of confidentiality by HMRC.
It would seem that the people running HMRC, and indeed the government itself, has little clue about the concept of security and id theft; this is the same government that wants to impose a national id card scheme on an unwilling population.
Those who don't receive a letter of apology are being asked to ring an HMRC helpline.
Congratulations to the HMRC for making matters worse and exposing 25 million people to the threat of fraud and id theft twice in two weeks, a double whammy.
Fuckwits!
www.hmrcisshite.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Wednesday, 28 November 2007
Disgruntled Lemmings
Not surprisingly, given the recent "kerfuffle" at the HMRC, morale amongst the hapless staff of this much maligned organisation is at an all time low.
Seemingly the employees have requested punchbags, squeeze balls and aromatherapy in order to relieve the stress that they feel.
What about the tax payers who have to deal with HMRC?
These demands had been posted on an HMRC staff discussion website (www.disgruntled-lemmings.com) which has been taken offline.
HMRC have stated that the website is not one of theirs.
Here is what the site looked like in July 2007 Disgruntled Lemmings.
Those of you who are keen to search a bit more on Google etc for caches may be pleased to know that HMRC staff are normal human beings, just like ourselves.
I was heartened to read the profile of one tax credits adviser in Newcastle, who lists among her interests "drugs".
Another member of HMRC lists his interests as "fucking up binis" (I believe that they emanate from Africa).
How very "reassuring" that HMRC staff have such eclectic hobbies, and are so cavalier with their personal information.
Fortunately they would never be so indiscreet with the personal information of their customers....oh, hang on a minute...
Seemingly the employees have requested punchbags, squeeze balls and aromatherapy in order to relieve the stress that they feel.
What about the tax payers who have to deal with HMRC?
These demands had been posted on an HMRC staff discussion website (www.disgruntled-lemmings.com) which has been taken offline.
HMRC have stated that the website is not one of theirs.
Here is what the site looked like in July 2007 Disgruntled Lemmings.
Those of you who are keen to search a bit more on Google etc for caches may be pleased to know that HMRC staff are normal human beings, just like ourselves.
I was heartened to read the profile of one tax credits adviser in Newcastle, who lists among her interests "drugs".
Another member of HMRC lists his interests as "fucking up binis" (I believe that they emanate from Africa).
How very "reassuring" that HMRC staff have such eclectic hobbies, and are so cavalier with their personal information.
Fortunately they would never be so indiscreet with the personal information of their customers....oh, hang on a minute...
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
The Vengeful HMRC
Members of the House of Lords vent their spleens against HMRC in The Times:
Sir,
Comment on the fiasco of the missing discs has concentrated on the sheer incompetence of those involved. Little attention has been paid to the doubtful legality of what Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs sought to do.
The discs contained highly confidential information on 25 million people. HMRC had no right whatever to supply such information to a third party except in response to a request from a body with a statutory power to demand it. It may be assumed that the National Audit Office has such a power; but it did not ask for the banking and other details that HMRC included in the information it tried (unsuccessfully) to supply.
It would be interesting to know what possible justification the department had for attempting to supply confidential information for which it was not asked. The cost of excluding such information cannot possibly be a sufficient excuse.
Lord Millett
House of Lords
Sir,
I agree with Libby Purves (“They hate you. And in the end R&C will get you”, Nov 23). In common with quite a number of people, the compilation of my tax return is a complex exercise and I have to employ a professional adviser. Six years ago it sent me a refund cheque for £138,512.48 which, although a very pleasant surprise, was totally wrong. I subsequently learnt that to send a refund cheque of such magnitude required the approval of several people.
I wrote to the Chairman of Inland Revenue returning the cheque, and in my letter made a comment which proved to be extremely accurate. I said: “What concerns me in this issue is that if I, or indeed, any other taxpayer, had made a fraction of the errors which the Revenue has made, then I would be rapidly pursued and taken to task in no uncertain way for such an error.” David Hartnett, who has now taken over as acting chairman of HMRC, said: “I am very sorry that we have compounded our earlier errors by incorrectly sending you such a very large cheque.”
I made an error myself in a recent tax return. My “case owner” pointed out the omission to my adviser, so the likelihood of it not coming to HMRC’s attention was nil. I immediately apologised, paid the outstanding tax by return and acknowledged that I would be liable to an interest charge. I thought this would be an end to the matter, but I received a letter which inferred that my case owner thought that what I had said might be a pretty tall story, but if I confessed and agreed to pay a penalty as well as the outstanding tax and interest, the taxman might let me off lightly.
HMRC can make mistakes, no matter how large or crass. But we, the despised “customers” (do they still use that term?), are, in the words of Libby Purves, all “on the fiddle”.
I spent six years as a Permanent Secretary, and developed an enormous respect for the Civil Service, but for some reason the Inland Revenue, now HMRC, does not believe that it is the servant of the taxpayer, but rather its master. Perhaps, just perhaps, this most recent blunder will make it realise that the customer, too, should be permitted to make the occasional mistake. (HMRC has now accepted my explanation.)
Lord Levene of Portsoken
House of Lords
Sir,
Comment on the fiasco of the missing discs has concentrated on the sheer incompetence of those involved. Little attention has been paid to the doubtful legality of what Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs sought to do.
The discs contained highly confidential information on 25 million people. HMRC had no right whatever to supply such information to a third party except in response to a request from a body with a statutory power to demand it. It may be assumed that the National Audit Office has such a power; but it did not ask for the banking and other details that HMRC included in the information it tried (unsuccessfully) to supply.
It would be interesting to know what possible justification the department had for attempting to supply confidential information for which it was not asked. The cost of excluding such information cannot possibly be a sufficient excuse.
Lord Millett
House of Lords
Sir,
I agree with Libby Purves (“They hate you. And in the end R&C will get you”, Nov 23). In common with quite a number of people, the compilation of my tax return is a complex exercise and I have to employ a professional adviser. Six years ago it sent me a refund cheque for £138,512.48 which, although a very pleasant surprise, was totally wrong. I subsequently learnt that to send a refund cheque of such magnitude required the approval of several people.
I wrote to the Chairman of Inland Revenue returning the cheque, and in my letter made a comment which proved to be extremely accurate. I said: “What concerns me in this issue is that if I, or indeed, any other taxpayer, had made a fraction of the errors which the Revenue has made, then I would be rapidly pursued and taken to task in no uncertain way for such an error.” David Hartnett, who has now taken over as acting chairman of HMRC, said: “I am very sorry that we have compounded our earlier errors by incorrectly sending you such a very large cheque.”
I made an error myself in a recent tax return. My “case owner” pointed out the omission to my adviser, so the likelihood of it not coming to HMRC’s attention was nil. I immediately apologised, paid the outstanding tax by return and acknowledged that I would be liable to an interest charge. I thought this would be an end to the matter, but I received a letter which inferred that my case owner thought that what I had said might be a pretty tall story, but if I confessed and agreed to pay a penalty as well as the outstanding tax and interest, the taxman might let me off lightly.
HMRC can make mistakes, no matter how large or crass. But we, the despised “customers” (do they still use that term?), are, in the words of Libby Purves, all “on the fiddle”.
I spent six years as a Permanent Secretary, and developed an enormous respect for the Civil Service, but for some reason the Inland Revenue, now HMRC, does not believe that it is the servant of the taxpayer, but rather its master. Perhaps, just perhaps, this most recent blunder will make it realise that the customer, too, should be permitted to make the occasional mistake. (HMRC has now accepted my explanation.)
Lord Levene of Portsoken
House of Lords
Monday, 26 November 2007
Systematic Failure
The data protection minister, Michael Wills, today said it was "too soon" to judge whether HM Revenue & Customs had been guilty of "systemic failure" in losing the personal information of 25 million people.
His comments came as police continued to search for the two CDs, containing child benefit data relating to 7.25 million families, which have been missing since a HMRC junior manager posted the discs to the National Audit Office on October 18.
Appearing before the joint committee on human rights, Wills said there were a "number of reasons" why he was not told about the loss of data before Alistair Darling's Commons statement.
Asked by the committee chair, the Labour MP Andrew Dismore, if he agreed with the Tories' accusation that HMRC was guilty of "systemic failure", he said:
"It's far too soon for me to be able to judge that. It's certainly wrong, deeply regrettable and the prime minister has already apologised for it."
Committee members expressed incredulity that Wills, as data protection minister, was not told about the problem before it was revealed in Parliament.
Source The Guardian
His comments came as police continued to search for the two CDs, containing child benefit data relating to 7.25 million families, which have been missing since a HMRC junior manager posted the discs to the National Audit Office on October 18.
Appearing before the joint committee on human rights, Wills said there were a "number of reasons" why he was not told about the loss of data before Alistair Darling's Commons statement.
Asked by the committee chair, the Labour MP Andrew Dismore, if he agreed with the Tories' accusation that HMRC was guilty of "systemic failure", he said:
"It's far too soon for me to be able to judge that. It's certainly wrong, deeply regrettable and the prime minister has already apologised for it."
Committee members expressed incredulity that Wills, as data protection minister, was not told about the problem before it was revealed in Parliament.
Source The Guardian
Money Saving Caused Data Loss
E-mails released by the National Audit Office have confirmed that officials at HM Revenue and Customs, did not want to remove sensitive information from child benefit data sent to the auditors because doing so would cost extra.
The revelation comes as the fallout from HMRC's loss of 25 million people's records continues to rock the British government.
Chancellor Alistair Darling blamed the loss -- Britain's biggest data breach ever -- on a junior official at HMRC who had sent unencrypted disks with information on child benefit claimants to the NAO.
But the e-mails, published by the NAO alongside its briefing for the chancellor, appear to bear out key accusations made by the Conservative Party that cost was an issue and that a senior official at HMRC was aware that unfiltered data was likely to be sent.
Source Computer World
The revelation comes as the fallout from HMRC's loss of 25 million people's records continues to rock the British government.
Chancellor Alistair Darling blamed the loss -- Britain's biggest data breach ever -- on a junior official at HMRC who had sent unencrypted disks with information on child benefit claimants to the NAO.
But the e-mails, published by the NAO alongside its briefing for the chancellor, appear to bear out key accusations made by the Conservative Party that cost was an issue and that a senior official at HMRC was aware that unfiltered data was likely to be sent.
Source Computer World
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)