The Adjudicator’s Office

4. Mr J complains the AO did not fully consider the history of events around his HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) complaint. In particular, he feels the AO should have examined issues dating back to 2019.

5. Mr J feels the £500 consolatory payment the AO considered reasonable did not go far enough. He believes it did not reflect the expenses he says he has accrued or the emotional impact caused by the distress and difficulties he experienced due to HMRC’s error.

6. As a result, Mr J says the situation has affected his professional and personal life, caused significant distress to his mental wellbeing, and left him in a difficult position, as his personal information remains shared with third parties.

7. In bringing the complaint to us, Mr J is seeking further compensation, service improvements and an apology.

8. The AO’s role is to consider whether the department (HMRC) has handled a complaint appropriately and have given a reasonable decision.

9. If the AO believes HMRC has acted unreasonably and has not followed applicable guidance, it will make recommendations to put right what went wrong. This may include making suggestions for service improvements where the AO thinks it could be of benefit to the wider public.

10. In September 2021, HMRC’s systems mistakenly matched another person’s information (an employee) to Mr J’s Pay As You Earn (PAYE) record. This was an administrative error.

11. Mr J became aware of the issue in March 2023, and contacted HMRC. HMRC took action to correct Mr J’s 2021-22 Self-Assessment Tax Return (SATR), which also corrected his Self-Assessment (SA) record. HMRC also raised a formal complaint to address the issue.

12. Due to not having received a response, Mr J contacted HMRC in May. In September, he made a formal written complaint as he believed the matter had still not been resolved. HMRC reviewed the case and issued a Tier One response in October. It said that the error had been resolved and apologised for any worry or distress caused.

13. Mr J raised further concerns with HMRC in November, as he felt the issue had not been fully resolved. In February 2024, he escalated the complaint to Tier Two through his MP.

14. HMRC responded to Mr J in June. It apologised for the delays in dealing with his complaint and confirmed its internal specialist team had further worked on and rectified the mismatch error. HMRC also acknowledged there had been delays in the handling of his complaint and offered £500 redress to acknowledge the delays in the way it had handled the complaint, and for the worry and distress caused. It also offered to cover any agent fees Mr J had incurred while trying to resolve the issue.

15. In September 2024, Mr J escalated his complaint to the AO. He said HMRC had ‘made mistakes, not kept to its commitments, and delayed in responding to him’. He also stated that the £500 redress HMRC offered was inadequate.

16. In February 2025, the AO issued its decision. It explained it had reviewed the issues Mr J raised, covering the period from September 2021, when the administrative error occurred. It found HMRC had provided a reasonable explanation, apology, and remedy, including the £500 redress, which it noted was at the higher end of HMRC’s guidance for consolatory redress. It said that it had not identified any mistakes from HMRC that had not already been remedied.

17. The AO also recommended that HMRC send Mr J a letter clarifying any remaining tax liabilities. However, it did not uphold the rest of Mr J’s complaints or instruct HMRC to take any further action.

18. In August, Mr J brought his complaint to us via his MP.

AO did not fully investigate concerns

21. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not been properly addressed. Having done so we have found no indications that anything has gone seriously wrong as the AO has appropriately addressed these issues.

22. Mr J complains that the AO did not fully consider the history of events around his HMRC complaint. In particular, he feels the AO should have examined issues dating back to 2019. He says the AO only investigated as far back as September 2021, which he believes was insufficient.

23. Our Complaint Standards state that organisations must provide a clear and balanced account of events based on evidence. They must compare what happened with what should have happened, and any conclusions must be supported by clear references to relevant legislation, policy, or guidance.

24. Mr J told the AO that HMRC had ‘made mistakes, not kept to its commitments, and delayed in responding to him’ when dealing with his complaint. In its response, HMRC acknowledged that an administrative error occurred in September 2021, when its system incorrectly matched another person’s details to Mr J’s PAYE record.

25. HMRC explained it had acted to resolve this error in view of what he had told it and apologised for this. It later carried out further reviews through its specialist team and corrected an additional mistake related to Mr J’s records. It issued another apology, offered £500 as redress, and stated it would reimburse any agent fees incurred due to its delays or errors.

26. As part of its investigation, the AO has access to HMRC’s internal system and other relevant records. It reviewed Mr J’s case using this evidence and decided that HMRC had taken the appropriate steps to resolve the issue. The AO report provides a clear account of its findings, supported by specific examples and references to relevant guidance.

27. The AO explained it had not found any mistakes from HMRC that had not already been addressed and remedied. It explained in line with its guidance on remedy, HMRC had appropriately acknowledged its mistakes and delays, apologised, and offered £500 redress which is at the higher end of its redress scale, and reflected the seriousness of its poor service.

28. We understand how distressing this situation must have been for Mr J. We also appreciate that he feels the AO should have investigated events dating back further (2019). The AO as a publicly funded organisation must balance providing a detailed service with acting proportionality and focusing on the key issues. In this case, the AO’s remit was to review the period from September 2021 onwards, which aligns with when the specific error in Mr J’s records occurred.

29. Having read the responses and reviewed the information, there is no indication that Mr J raised concerns about events prior to 2021, when he first contacted HMRC or the AO, or that he specifically asked HMRC or the AO to investigate his tax affairs for earlier periods. Without clear information to support such a request, we believe the AO was reasonable in limiting its investigation to the period starting from 2021, when the error Mr J complained about occurred.

30. Our view is that the AO conducted a fair, evidence-based, and proportionate investigation. It considered all relevant information, including additional evidence provided by Mr J. It compared what happened to what should have happened, gave a clear and balanced explanation of the events, and supported its findings with appropriate references to relevant guidance.

31. We consider the AO’s actions to be in line with our Complaint standards. Its approach was fair, thorough and proportionate, and we have not identified any reasons to challenge its decision. As such, we will take no further action regarding this part of Mr J’s complaint.

32. Our decision may not be what Mr J hoped for, and we fully acknowledge the frustration and distress this situation has caused him. We hope this explanation provides clarity and reassurance on how we reached our decision.

Consolatory payment

33. Mr J feels the £500 consolatory payment the AO considered reasonable does not go far enough. He explained this amount does not cover the expenses he has incurred or the emotional impact he has experienced because of HMRC’s mistakes.

34. A consolatory payment, based on HMRC’s guidance, is meant to acknowledge and apologise for significant distress, worry, or inconvenience caused by errors or delays. It is not intended to cover financial losses, such as accountant fees or lost earnings, but rather to address the impact of poor service on an individual. Financial losses are typically addressed through separate reimbursement mechanisms. Consolatory payments are usually between £25 and £500 but are usually at the lower end of the scale.

35. The AO review noted that HMRC offered Mr J a consolatory payment of £500 as redress for the impact of its mistakes and delays. This amount is at the higher end of HMRC’s redress scale, which reflects the seriousness of the poor service Mr J experienced.

36. In addition, HMRC also offered to reimburse any agent fees that Mr J incurred while trying to resolve the errors with his tax records. It further explained that it could not compensate Mr J for his own time spent dealing with the matter unless he could provide evidence of lost income as a result. From our review of the information provided, we could not find evidence that Mr J submitted such evidence to HMRC or the AO.

37. As part of its investigation, the AO reviewed HMRC’s actions and its redress offer. It found that HMRC had taken appropriate steps to acknowledge its mistakes and delays, apologised appropriately, and offered remedies that were reasonable and in line with its guidance.

38. These remedies included the £500 consolatory payment as well as reimbursement for any agent fees. The AO explained that no further action was necessary because HMRC had already done enough to put things right.

39. While we recognise that Mr J feels strongly that the redress should be higher due to the emotional impact and costs he has experienced, we find the AO acted within its remit when assessing HMRC’s response. The AO conducted a fair, evidence-based investigation and appropriately concluded that the redress offered was proportionate to the service failings identified. The redress was also in line with HMRC’s redress guidance, as explained by the AO.

40. Having carefully reviewed this part of Mr J’s complaint, as well as the relevant guidance, we believe that the AO’s assessment of the £500 consolatory payment as reasonable and proportionate was correct. We also believe HMRC has taken reasonable steps to offer further reimbursement for specific expenses where applicable. We have not identified any failings in how the AO reached its conclusion.

41. We will therefore take no further action on this part of Mr J’s complaint. We acknowledge how difficult this situation has been for Mr J and sincerely hope this explanation provides some clarity regarding our decision. We wish him all the best for the future.

1. We have carefully considered Mr J’s complaint about the Adjudicator’s Office (AO). We are sorry to hear about the frustration and distress this situation has caused him.

2. We have decided not to take any further action because we consider the AO has already completed a fair, thorough, and evidence-based investigation into Mr J’s concerns about HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). We also find that the consolatory payment was in line with HMRC redress guidance, so we have not seen indications anything went seriously wrong. We appreciate this will be disappointing for Mr J.

3. We will explain our decision in detail below. We hope this will help to understand our decision and give some reassurance about what happened.