The Adjudicator’s Office

13. In April 2022 Mr T applied for SACC for the period 9 March 2021 and 5 April 2021. This was on the basis that he was caring for his grandchild during that period. HMRC denied the application because Mr T’s daughter was not claiming child benefit during the period.

14. Mr T wrote to HMRC on 4 July and asked for a reconsideration. He said his daughter would apply for child benefit.

15. HMRC replied to the reconsideration request on 4 October and upheld its original decision.

16. Mr T replied to HMRC on 15 October 2022 and said his daughter had applied for child benefit within the last few days. He said he trusted the SACC would be dealt with once the claim was accepted.

17. HMRC processed Mr T’s daughter’s application for child benefit on 18 October 2022. The claim was accepted and backdated 3 months, to 18 July 2022.

18. On 16 March 2023, Mr T applied for SACC for the period 6 April 2021 to 5 April 2022. He also asked HMRC for an update on his initial claim.

19. HMRC rejected the claim because Mr T’s daughter did not claim child benefit until 18 July 2022. On the same day, it wrote to Mr T regarding his letters on 15 October 2022 and 16 March 2023. It said he would receive a decision letter for his second SACC claim shortly and that he could check with child benefit on backdating polices before re-applying for SACC.

20. On 19 June 2023, Mr T wrote to HMRC and said that he was unhappy his SACC claims had not been accepted. He said HMRC held responsibility for his daughter not making a child benefit claim sooner. He said would be claiming SACC for 2022/2023 soon.

21. In August 2023, Mr T applied for SACC for the period 6 April 2022 to 5 April 2023.

22. On 19 March 2024, HMRC awarded SACC from 18 July 2022 (the date child benefit was claimed). It also replied to the points Mr T raised in his letter on 19 June 2023.

23. Mr T complained to HMRC about how it handled the matters on 28 April 2024.

24. HMRC replied and said it could not award SACC for any period in which there was no child benefit claim. It signposted Mr T to the AO if he remained unhappy and he approached it not long after.

25. In the AO’s final investigation report, it said HMRC followed guidance when it decided not to award SACC for the periods in question, because there was no valid child benefit claim in that time. It also said HMRC’s guidance was not misleading.

Complaint about HMRC

28. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. If we find a significant difference between the two, we call this a failing. We will then consider if this has had an impact which has not yet been put right by the organisation involved in the complaint.

29. Mr T complains that the SACC guidance when he applied for it 2022 was inadequate and misleading. He says that had this not been the case, he would have been able to claim SACC sooner than was the case.

30. Mr T says that the guidance in place when he first applied for SACC in April 2022 states, ‘You can apply for SACC if the child’s parent (or main carer) is entitled to Child Benefit and has a qualifying year for National Insurance without needing the parent’s class 3 NI credits which they receive automatically from Child Benefit’.

31. He says use of the word entitled, led him to believe that a claim for child benefit was not necessarily needed. In his view, if his daughter was entitled to child benefit, he could claim SACC at a later date and receive it, even if his daughter had not claimed child benefit.

32. He says the guidance was changed in July 2023 to read ‘if no one has claimed Child Benefit for the child, there is no attached NI credit to transfer. This means credits cannot be awarded’.

33. He says the word ‘entitled’ was removed and replaced with ‘claimed’. He believes this happened because HMRC accepted that the guidance was misleading, and his complaint highlighted this. This is the basis of Mr T’s complaint that the guidance was misleading.

34. We note that the guidance in place in 2022 contained a section which the July 2023 change reflected. It said that ‘if no one has claimed child benefit for the child there is no attached NI credit to transfer and SACC credits cannot he awarded’.

35. The guidance is intended to be read, and used, in full. Mr T says this section of the guidance must not have resonated with him, and he formed his view based on the other statement which used the word ‘entitled’. We understand Mr T’s position and can see why he feels frustrated.

36. We also note that in the part of the guidance Mr T referenced it states ‘has a qualifying year for National Insurance’ and this did not apply to his daughter. Mr T had no reason to believe his daughter had an active child benefit claim or NI credits he could use.

37. The evidence above does not suggest that the guidance was misleading. It states the requirements for SACC and that if there is no child benefit claim, then SACC cannot be awarded. This is the correct information and HMRC acted in line with the guidance which is what we would have expected. Therefore, there are no indications anything went wrong, and we will not consider it further.

38. Mr T also complains that HMRC’s responses to his concerns about the guidance were delayed

39. According to the AO and accepted by HMRC, there were delays in HMRC responding to correspondence that Mr T sent it.

40. For example, Mr T wrote to HMRC on 15 October 2022 and said his daughter would be claiming SACC shortly. He also said he trusted his first application for SACC would be dealt with. HMRC did not reply.

41. Mr T wrote to CMS again on 16 March 2023 with his second SACC claim. He also asked for an update on his first claim.

42. HMRC responded to both letters on 8 June 2023, this was about 8 months after Mr T’s initial letter. The AO said HMRC should have responded much sooner. HMRC accepts this.

43. On 19 June 2023, Mr S wrote to HMRC and said that he was unhappy his SACC claims had not been accepted. He said HMRC held responsibility for his daughter not making a child benefit claim sooner. He said he would be claiming SACC for 2022/2023 soon.

44. On 22 August 2023, Mr S applied for SACC for the period 6 April 2022 to 5 April 2023.

45. On 19 March 2024, HMRC awarded SACC from 18 July 2022 (the date child benefit was claimed). It also replied to the points Mr T raised in his letter on 19 June 2023.

46. Again, this was about seven months after it received Mr T’s letter. The AO said HMRC should have responded sooner. HMRC accepts this.

47. Overall, HMRC accepts there were delays in responding to Mr T’s correspondence about SACC. Our principles say organisations should deal with correspondence promptly and within reasonable timescales. HMRC’s delays were not in line with our principles, which is an indication that something went wrong. So, we have considered the impact this had on Mr T. We have also looked at any action taken by HMRC to put things right.

48. Mr T feels that HMRC’s delays meant his daughter did not apply for Child Benefit sooner and therefore, he did not apply for SACC sooner. We understand that Mr T feels frustrated by this.

49. The HMRC guidance is clear in that a child benefit claim needed to be made for someone to receive SACC. It was Mr T’s daughter’s choice not to apply for child benefit, irrespective of HMRC delays. It was also her responsibility to be aware of benefits she could claim, especially if her father wanted to claim SACC. The lack of claim was not on advice or direction of HMRC. Therefore, we cannot see a financial impact to Mr T.

50. We think there was likely some frustration or distress experienced by Mr T because of delayed replies. We are sorry to hear of how this has impacted Mr T.

51. HMRC Complaints and Remedy Guidance states HMRC will pay compensation for errors it identifies, such as delayed responses to letters. It explains that consolatory offers for worry and distress are intended to be a way of acknowledging the effect HMRC’s mistakes and delays have had on the customer but clarifies that these are not akin to damages and do not amount to admission of legal liability. In terms of figures, it states that payments tend to range between £25 and £500. It does, however, explain that most payments are on the lower end of the range.

52. In this case, we see HMRC has already apologised and paid £100 to Mr T. This is in line with HMRC’s remedy guidance. Also, if we were to investigate the complaint in more detail, it is unlikely that we would achieve anything more. While we appreciate Mr T feels more should be done, we find HMRC has done enough to put this right. As such, we have decided not to take any further action.

Complaint about the AO

53. Mr T complains that the AO failed to consider whether HMRC’s guidance the SACC guidance in place at the time of the events was misleading or deficient.

54. As we have explained, the AO said that the guidance in place at the time was appropriate, not misleading and was followed by HMRC.

55. The Complaint Standards state organisations ‘should give a clear and balanced account of what happened, based on established facts. Each account compares what happened with what should have happened. It gives clear references to any relevant legislation, standards, policies, procedures or guidance, based on objective criteria’.

56. We note the AO looked at Mr T’s concerns, reviewed the SACC guidance, and provided a clear account of its findings. It gave examples of what it found to help highlight why it felt the guidance was not misleading. We find these actions are in line with the Complaint Standards and will not consider it further.

57. Mr T also complains that the AO refused to obtain or review internal HMRC communications which showed HMRC was aware of systemic issues with SACC. Mr T obtained internal information from HMRC when he asked it why it decided to make changes to its SACC guidance. The AO had already completed its investigation by this point.

58. HMRC supplied Mr T with some information, primarily two emails which he believes to be of importance.

59. In the first email from April 2022, a HMRC employee emailed another. They said the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) was a regular reason for SACC claims being rejected. They said customers were unaware that not claiming child benefit could affect their, or a family member’s, pension entitlement.

60. The employee suggested that information in the SACC guidance (the subject of this complaint) could be used more widely in other places, like the child benefit form, to help make this clearer for customers. This suggests that they believed SACC guidance was an accurate, complete source of information, rather than it being misleading or deficient in the way Mr T believes.

61. The second email from May 2022 was again between HMRC colleagues. But it did not highlight any issues with the SACC guidance itself. The author simply said that they did not think their team needed to input on the matter, but, if needed, they would be part of a conversation around child benefit. Again, this does not highlight any issues with the SACC guidance, or suggest any issues were highlighted with that guidance specifically.

62. We appreciate that Mr T believes the AO should have obtained these emails and information relating to why HMRC made changes to the SACC guidance, but it had no reason to do so. The AO had already viewed the guidance in place at the time of the events, and the later changed guidance and could not find any issues with either. So, it had no reason to obtain the emails that Mr T did.

63. Even if there was a reason for the AO to obtain the emails, they did not contain anything that would have undermined its investigation or cast doubt on its decision making. So, it would likely have had made no difference to the outcome of the investigation. While appreciate Mr T has a different view to this, we find no indications of maladministration here.

64. The Complaint Standards state organisations should capture feedback and take learning from complaints. We note the AO told Mr T in its investigation report that it would ask HMRC to consider including additional information in its guidance as this may provide additional support for customers. This action is in line with our Complaint Standards. We recognise this may lead to changes in the guidance but this does not mean that the guidance was incorrect or misleading. It shows continuous improvement.

65. Based on the above, we have decided not to consider the complaint further. We appreciate this is not the outcome Mr T wanted, and we wish him all the best for the future.

1. We have carefully considered Mr T’s complaint about HMRC. We found that HMRC’s guidance on Specified Adult Childcare Credits (SACC) was not inadequate or misleading, so we will not consider this further. There were delays in HMRC responding to some correspondence from Mr T and we understand this was distressing for him. It appears HMRC has done enough to put this right. Therefore, we will take no further action.

2. We found that the AO responded to concerns Mr T raised with it about the SACC guidance and that there was no reason for it to obtain internal HMRC communications about the guidance.

3. While we appreciate that the events have been a source of distress for Mr T, we have decided not to take any further action.

The complaint about HMRC

4. Mr T complains that HMRC’s published guidance about SACC when he applied for it 2022 was inadequate and misleading. He also complains that HMRC’s responses to his concerns about this were delayed.

5. He says that had this not been the case, he would have been able to claim SACC sooner than was the case. Mr T says he has experienced financial loss.

6. Mr T wants an acknowledgment that things went wrong, and financial compensation for the SACC he was unable to claim.

The complaint about the Adjudicators Office (the AO)

7. Mr T complains about how the AO handled his complaint about HMRC. Specifically, he complains that the AO:

• failed to consider whether HMRC’s guidance for Specified Adult Childcare Credits (SACC) in place at the time of the events was misleading or deficient • refused to obtain or review internal HMRC communications (dated 25 April and 4 May 2022) which showed HMRC was aware of systemic issues with SACC.

8. Mr T says that as a result, the AO wrongly concluded that HMRC acted appropriately.

9. Mr T wants an acknowledgment that things went wrong, and financial compensation for the SACC he was unable to claim.