Bradford mum's anger at tax office demand (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

typical, try to better yourself and kicked in the face.
would they have preferred she sat on her arse like most other single parents and scrounge off the state.
tell them your an immigrant, don't understand english and it will be squashed!

She appears to be an easy target by an incompetant HMRC (a familiar story) but I wonder where the childs father is in all this, is he paying towards the childs support and liable for some costs?

AGREE WITH THE TWO POSTERS ABOVE.

tHE REVENUE USUALLY REFUSE TO DISCUSS INDIVIDUAL CASES: SOMEONE IS IN FOR A ROLLICKING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

tyker wrote:
AGREE WITH THE TWO POSTERS ABOVE.

tHE REVENUE USUALLY REFUSE TO DISCUSS INDIVIDUAL CASES: SOMEONE IS IN FOR A ROLLICKING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

I doubt it Tyker the HMRC are vulchers, I should know as 2010 will see me part with £30,000+ in tax. They show no mercy....

East_Bowling_Bantam wrote:

tyker wrote: AGREE WITH THE TWO POSTERS ABOVE. tHE REVENUE USUALLY REFUSE TO DISCUSS INDIVIDUAL CASES: SOMEONE IS IN FOR A ROLLICKING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

I doubt it Tyker the HMRC are vulchers, I should know as 2010 will see me part with £30,000+ in tax. They show no mercy....

Wish I earned enough money to have a 30k tax bill. Pay your share like everyone else ans STOP WHINGING.

Whats the problem here? She doesn't have to pay it all back in one go, they are taking it from her benefits. She needs to think of it as a loan.

yezboss wrote:
She appears to be an easy target by an incompetant HMRC (a familiar story) but I wonder where the childs father is in all this, is he paying towards the childs support and liable for some costs?

Is he hell liable! He has been paying Child Maintenance for that child since he was 5 months old (More than he was told by the CSA may I add) as well as having Bradley as often as he can so in turn needing to buy the same amount as essential as the mother! If he did anymore he would be sleeping in a box! This is nothing more than I expected

"She has been receiving the cash in monthly payments of around £1,000 since then."
So if she had not worked this would have been ok?

she has been working since then which means she has been receiving child maintenance, a wage and then all the benefits lucking her! or maybe not if she has to pay it back and rightly so!

As these stories unfold the truth often differs from the original report, as indeed seems to be indicated in this case.

I agree with ALBION. This is the second story I have read today on this site where people have gone to the media over something that is a private matter and should be dealt with accordingly.
.
Sadly Lisa-Marie is not the first and will not be the last person to be caught out like this by an overly complicated tax/benefits system. Has she been and got advice on the matter?
.
It is a shame that she has had to give up her opportunities because of this and I hope she can continue once it is all sorted out. Good luck Lisa-Marie.

she clearly knew it was wrong: she has a legal obligation to repay.

Brownie points to the dad eh!!!! Didnt think this young mum had made comment about the father... Most of the above comments are stupid.!! This is not a young mum on income support sat on her backside all day doing nothing , but a mum trying to do something and getting help/money which she is rightly entitled to, nothing me or you would not want. I find it disturbing that this young mum is getting slated for filling in a form (correctly) , getting awarded some extra money, spending it and now probably having sleepless nights wondering how she is going to pay it back..As for being a loan,what a stupid pointless thing to say .. I suppose if she had wanted one she would have asked for a loan . Once again it's us that have to stress over the Inland revenue cocking up AGAIN.!!! Best stay at home lass and sponge of the state....

The tax and benefit system has got so complex under Labour that even the staff who run it are confused.
.
How are Joe Public meant to understand?

The Tax Office is a shambles. Even when they are informed by other Agencies that people are being paid benefits they don't qualify for they just tell the said Agencies to pay it anyway. It requires a major overhaul.
BTW why do the T&A always insist the subject of their hard-luck stories put a pathetic look on their face. Way to exploit a child!

Surely this woman must have known that £1000 a month was probably an error. I haven't heard of anyone claiming that amount on tax credits. One would have thought that, if that amount had been paid to her, she would have realised there had been some error and contacted the Tax Office to inform them, simply to avoid this story getting to the point that is has.

Martin_Grogan_10 wrote:

yezboss wrote:
She appears to be an easy target by an incompetant HMRC (a familiar story) but I wonder where the childs father is in all this, is he paying towards the childs support and liable for some costs?

Is he hell liable! He has been paying Child Maintenance for that child since he was 5 months old (More than he was told by the CSA may I add) as well as having Bradley as often as he can so in turn needing to buy the same amount as essential as the mother! If he did anymore he would be sleeping in a box! This is nothing more than I expected

Martin. All well and good then. The father is paying. That was disclosed in the T&A article. Perhaps it should have been, still looks like and incompetent HMRC though.

how very sad that this little boy is going to loose his place in childcare with all his friends,routine and security because of a mistake .which i might add not on the mothers part. a young mother trying to better her life and the life of her child.i take my hat off to you and your efforts and dignity to want to better yourself and not sponge off the state like so many others in your situation.

looks like another simple case of wrong colour and wrong nationality to me!

I would just like to say thank you for the comments to the people who care and understand my situation but you people who have no care at all would not like to be in my situation at this moment in time. Bradleys father pays some money to me for bradley but it takes 2 to tango and threfore Bradley is his responsibility as well as mine. I might have got a wage and benefits but i had child care, rent and bills to pay as well as food to buy and clothes to buy for myself and my son. I live by my self and i think i have done well for my self to bring my son up from 6 months old. Getting a payment of around £1,000 a month is not the wrong amount for a lone parent who is on a low income so i did not question this. At least i am doing something with my life ...... when bradley is older i dont want him to ask me what i did when i was his age and for me to reply "i sat at home because i could not be bothered working" i would rather work then sit at home board doing nothing with my life. Although i am a single parent i have made something with my life and got qualifications behind me and my family are proud of me for managing after everything i have been through and i know i have their support. This report has not mentioned Martin William Grogan (Bradleys farther) because he does not live with me or pay money towards child care and therefor does not claim any benefits for bradley so it does not effect him in any way. Thanks again

eelyecats wrote:
how very sad that this little boy is going to loose his place in childcare with all his friends,routine and security because of a mistake .which i might add not on the mothers part. a young mother trying to better her life and the life of her child.i take my hat off to you and your efforts and dignity to want to better yourself and not sponge off the state like so many others in your situation.

Thankyou for your comment, feel free to add any more comments you would like to and have your say because something needs o be done. ta

billybullpit wrote:
looks like another simple case of wrong colour and wrong nationality to me!

lol ...

There are two things wrong about this story. Firstly, If HMRC got the award wrong, why should Lisa-Marie have to pay it back. If she correctly completed her applications and kept HMRC up to date with any changes, then the error lies with the tax authorities and she shouldn't have to repay the money.

The second issue is regarding the amount of the awards. This is an obscene amount of money and is simply wrong. Okay, Lisa-Marie and Martin Grogan didn't plan to have a child and split up, but why should the rest of us have to pay for a broken relationship?

I work full-time and so does my wife, we don't earn vast wages, yet we qualify for £12 p/month tax credits. We got more under the old 'married mans tax code' and this just shows how they are taking from one family who have worked at their relationship as opposed to one that has broken down.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at the claimant as she has simply applied for whatever she was entitled to. I just think it is wrong and unfair that she gets to claim over £1k in tax credits, child maintenance from the father and a salary. She probably earns as much (if not more) than my wife and I earn combined and that is unfair!

Martin_Grogan_10 wrote:
she has been working since then which means she has been receiving child maintenance, a wage and then all the benefits lucking her! or maybe not if she has to pay it back and rightly so!

"or maybe not if she has to pay it back and rightly so"! Am I right in thinking you are Bradley's father or grandfather? In that case, are you not concerned that the decision to make Lisa-Marie repay money due to a HMRC error, could have lasting effects on Bradley?

For example, if his mother cannot afford child care, where does that leave Bradley? Research shows that children that mingle with other kids are likely to be more academical throughout schooling. Can't you acknowledge she has been dealt an unfair blow, even through your obvious personal differences with her?

Maybe if she can not afford child care Bradley should go live with the father who can afford to and would be more than happy to without having to claim £11000 in benefits then she can concentrate on her career.

Just done a basic input on tax credits website based on £8,840 per annum (top of apprenteship scale) working 37 hours and paying £175 per week nursery fees and the tax credit system said you would be entitled to:

Based on the information you have entered, your household may be entitled to the following tax credits award:-
Child Tax Credit £2686.64
Childcare element of Working Tax Credit £6861.16
Sub total £9547.80
Working Tax Credit (less the childcare element of Working Tax Credit) £3451.79
Note: The childcare element of Working Tax Credit will always be paid direct to the person who is mainly responsible for caring for the child or children, alongside payments of Child Tax Credit.

Total £12,999.59

So it looks like Lisa Marie is not to blame and has provided all the information requested, seems to me the government like to give money away. Combined wage income and tax credit income is £21,839.59, me and my partner work full time and only come out with £1,500 more. What on earth are we doing wrong?

Martin_Grogan_10 wrote:
Maybe if she can not afford child care Bradley should go live with the father who can afford to and would be more than happy to without having to claim £11000 in benefits then she can concentrate on her career.

Whether that is true or not, unless the child is not being brought up correctly, I cannot ever see any reason why a mother and child should be separated. Just because you (or your son) earns more than Lisa-Marie, it shouldn't give you carte blanche over your son's upbringing.

You appear bitter towards Lisa-Marie and as I know neither of you, I am not going to get into this part of the debate. However, surely you understand that, if you act in the best interests of yourself and your son and somebody else makes a mistake, you shouldn't be penalised? IF Lisa-Marie correctly completed the application forms and kept HMRC up to date with any changes that may affect the award, then she has done nothing wrong and as such, it is unfair of you to write, "she has to pay it back and rightly so"!

In relation to child care costs, had Lisa-Marie not been awarded a tax credit to help cover these, the father MAY have been forced to increase his maintenance payment to help pay for these costs. I appreciate this may seem harsh, but these are the current rules on maintenance. So, instead of making a payment towards the upkeep of the child, it's mother and their living expenses, an increase towards child care costs may be applicable. Where would that set you (or your son) back then?

And before you question if I am defending all single mums and the award of maintenance costs, I will explain that I am still paying for my eldest son, who is approaching 18 years of age, whilst his mum refuses to go out to work, citing medical grounds (and there is nothing physically wrong with her)!

Leighann wrote:
Just done a basic input on tax credits website based on £8,840 per annum (top of apprenteship scale) working 37 hours and paying £175 per week nursery fees and the tax credit system said you would be entitled to: Based on the information you have entered, your household may be entitled to the following tax credits award:- Child Tax Credit £2686.64 Childcare element of Working Tax Credit £6861.16 Sub total £9547.80 Working Tax Credit (less the childcare element of Working Tax Credit) £3451.79 Note: The childcare element of Working Tax Credit will always be paid direct to the person who is mainly responsible for caring for the child or children, alongside payments of Child Tax Credit. Total £12,999.59 So it looks like Lisa Marie is not to blame and has provided all the information requested, seems to me the government like to give money away. Combined wage income and tax credit income is £21,839.59, me and my partner work full time and only come out with £1,500 more. What on earth are we doing wrong?

Two things to add here. Firstly, judged on the calculations, you say she could be awarded £21,839.59. Of course there is then the money given by the father to be added to that, who claims he can easily afford to pay the childcare costs on his own (so must be earning a few quid and any award would reflect this).

Secondly, you go on to add that "you and your partner work full time and only come out with £1,500 more". You haven't confirmed if this includes any tax credit awards that you are entitled to or if you have to pay out £175 p/week in child-care costs?

Personally, I think the whole benefits system needs rebuilding. It is unfair to the hard-working to have to carry those that either cannot be bothered working or are struggling to bring up children from failed relationships.

Why should somebody on minimum wage get less than some lazy slob that refuses to work for a living? Likewise, why should we have to pay to help bring up the children from failed relationships, when we can't afford to have bigger families ourselves???

The whole system stinks and I just hope the newly elected Government (whoever that will be) sorts this out, once and for all!

Dont hold your breath.

Waynus71 wrote:
There are two things wrong about this story. Firstly, If HMRC got the award wrong, why should Lisa-Marie have to pay it back. If she correctly completed her applications and kept HMRC up to date with any changes, then the error lies with the tax authorities and she shouldn't have to repay the money. The second issue is regarding the amount of the awards. This is an obscene amount of money and is simply wrong. Okay, Lisa-Marie and Martin Grogan didn't plan to have a child and split up, but why should the rest of us have to pay for a broken relationship? I work full-time and so does my wife, we don't earn vast wages, yet we qualify for £12 p/month tax credits. We got more under the old 'married mans tax code' and this just shows how they are taking from one family who have worked at their relationship as opposed to one that has broken down. Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at the claimant as she has simply applied for whatever she was entitled to. I just think it is wrong and unfair that she gets to claim over £1k in tax credits, child maintenance from the father and a salary. She probably earns as much (if not more) than my wife and I earn combined and that is unfair!

Agree with you on that.
Perhaps would have been fairer if they waive half of the overpaid benefits and let her pay the other half back at so much a week/month.
I do find it disturbing that an 18yo single mother thinks £1000 a month in benefits is fair game, plus maintenance from the father plus whatever wage shes getting which presumably is tax free too!
No wonder teenagers are quite happy to be lax with birth control and get pregnant when its so financially rewarding!
Getting pregnant at 17/18, they will have hardly paid any tax or contributed much before they take all the benefits on offer will they?

Martin_Grogan_10 wrote:
Maybe if she can not afford child care Bradley should go live with the father who can afford to and would be more than happy to without having to claim £11000 in benefits then she can concentrate on her career.

Well if that is the case why dont the father pay for the child care?? Oh no points scoring it seems by a bitter man ...The mother of your child is not sat on her backside sponging of the state . How typical " if she can't afford it let him live with me". And don't come out with the old "I PAY MORE THAN I HAVE TO BY THE CSA" . This had nothing to do with you the father of Bradley it was an article regarding the mother no mention of the father and how much he pays etcetc.. I t was small minded idiots on here that brought the father into it. He ought to be ashamed of hiself as I said earlier with his comments about the mother of his child. So glad not my son .....Good luck Lisa-marie in your battle with the good old inland rev and a bitter father of your son looks like your going to need it !!!!!

Since Lisa-Marie is only getting £54 a week now and paying the money back out of that in what is presumably very small amounts, I think that she has got a pretty good deal on her "loan". Nobody will be knocking on her door demanding money, she won't have ccj, her credit rating will be unaffected. Best thing to do now is shut up about it.

Waynus71 wrote:

Leighann wrote:
Just done a basic input on tax credits website based on £8,840 per annum (top of apprenteship scale) working 37 hours and paying £175 per week nursery fees and the tax credit system said you would be entitled to: Based on the information you have entered, your household may be entitled to the following tax credits award:- Child Tax Credit £2686.64 Childcare element of Working Tax Credit £6861.16 Sub total £9547.80 Working Tax Credit (less the childcare element of Working Tax Credit) £3451.79 Note: The childcare element of Working Tax Credit will always be paid direct to the person who is mainly responsible for caring for the child or children, alongside payments of Child Tax Credit. Total £12,999.59 So it looks like Lisa Marie is not to blame and has provided all the information requested, seems to me the government like to give money away. Combined wage income and tax credit income is £21,839.59, me and my partner work full time and only come out with £1,500 more. What on earth are we doing wrong?

Two things to add here. Firstly, judged on the calculations, you say she could be awarded £21,839.59. Of course there is then the money given by the father to be added to that, who claims he can easily afford to pay the childcare costs on his own (so must be earning a few quid and any award would reflect this).

Secondly, you go on to add that "you and your partner work full time and only come out with £1,500 more". You haven't confirmed if this includes any tax credit awards that you are entitled to or if you have to pay out £175 p/week in child-care costs?

Personally, I think the whole benefits system needs rebuilding. It is unfair to the hard-working to have to carry those that either cannot be bothered working or are struggling to bring up children from failed relationships.

Why should somebody on minimum wage get less than some lazy slob that refuses to work for a living? Likewise, why should we have to pay to help bring up the children from failed relationships, when we can't afford to have bigger families ourselves???

The whole system stinks and I just hope the newly elected Government (whoever that will be) sorts this out, once and for all!

No it doesn't include child tax credit, we get the basic, think it's £11 per week and we do get £80 per month child benefit, but we don't class these as income to live on, they go straight into a savings account for our son and budget from our incomes.

We don't pay childcare as he is at school now full time, he did go to nursery but only 2 days per week as that is all we could afford and the rest of the time was looked after by family, lookily when he turned 3 he was entitled to the 12.5 hours free nursery place which did help so we were able to put him into nursery longer.

"Leighann...No it doesn't include child tax credit, we get the basic, think it's £11 per week and we do get £80 per month child benefit, but we don't class these as income to live on, they go straight into a savings account for our son and budget from our incomes." It doesn't matter what you class it as, it is income coming into the household from whatever the source. How you choose to spend it is your business but it can't be disregarded from total income.

Darbees wrote:
"Leighann...No it doesn't include child tax credit, we get the basic, think it's £11 per week and we do get £80 per month child benefit, but we don't class these as income to live on, they go straight into a savings account for our son and budget from our incomes." It doesn't matter what you class it as, it is income coming into the household from whatever the source. How you choose to spend it is your business but it can't be disregarded from total income.

I have just read two posts from you; one of which I agree entirely (above) and the other I find insulting. If someone had made a mistake with your payments, would you be thankful you could repay the overpayment back in installments and 'keep your mouth shut'? I know I wouldn't be happy about it and would fight it all the way. The HMRC have altered Lisa-Marie's financial position and in any other business, would not have to pay back someone else's mistake!

As for your response to 'Leighann', you are spot on. Whether she saves the money or not, it is still income. She doesn't seem to understand that the amount awarded for 'child-care costs' isn't for Lisa-Marie to spend or save, it is for her to pay for child care.

Whether it is fair for tax-payers to subsidise other families child-care is another debate.

"Waynus71......I find insulting. If someone had made a mistake with your payments, would you be thankful you could repay the overpayment back in installments and 'keep your mouth shut'?"......
I'm sorry you find that insulting, it wasn't meant as such, I was just saying that I think she has ended up with a cheap loan albeit one she didn't ask for. The nominal interest free, repayment amounts are unlikely to have much effect on her day to day life and rightly or wrongly, she has had the benefit of the money.
We must remember that although the authorities are highly disorganised they do have a responsibility to the rest of us to ensure that anyone who receives OUR money in error pays it back. Why should anyone benefit to the tune of £11,000 because a mistake was made?

My understading of the law is Where its not your mistake and the recovery of wrongly paid Tax credits would cause hardship there can be no recovery.Of course it will cause hardship.The mistake has also altered her position and other benefits that would have been payable(Housing benefit and council tax benefit)cannot be paid retrospectively.
Under this Government we have seen so many of these cases.Paperwork is just pushed through because those administering do not understand the systems.
The CSA and Home Office have both been declared by our own government that they are unfit for purpose!What a mandate basis to seek more of the same on.
You wont find a lawyer to take your case on unless you"ve a spare £3000.Citizens Advice Bureau"s are underfunded and have liitle expertise in complicated ares of the law.
Your best option would be to sell your story to the Daily Mail to assist you in paying it back and how sas that is.Alternatively try and see a senior tax inspector.I feel sure this will be resolved for Lisa Marie.You have been badly prejudiced through the incompetence of maladministration.Pe
rhaps Brown should be chasing your landlord for return of the rent you have paid,your childminder for the return of the wages you have paid,or your local authority{now theres another shambles)for the return of the council tax you have paid.You are the victim of the set of circumstances that have arisen under Labour where none knows what they are doing anymore whether it be this government department or the other.The whole **** lot of them operate in shambles,innefficent
,undertrained,underm
anned.overpaid and displaying a level of self importance and incompetence that only a gov job would ensure they survive.The french had the right way to deal with these idiots who have taken the country to the point of bankruptcy.Billions is been having to be written off through financial incompetence of the government through maladministration and that wont get any better under anyone else because its gone too far.good luck with your case.I"m confident you will get a result and someone as is Browns style will get a demotion

Waynus71 wrote:

Darbees wrote:
"Leighann...No it doesn't include child tax credit, we get the basic, think it's £11 per week and we do get £80 per month child benefit, but we don't class these as income to live on, they go straight into a savings account for our son and budget from our incomes." It doesn't matter what you class it as, it is income coming into the household from whatever the source. How you choose to spend it is your business but it can't be disregarded from total income.

I have just read two posts from you; one of which I agree entirely (above) and the other I find insulting. If someone had made a mistake with your payments, would you be thankful you could repay the overpayment back in installments and 'keep your mouth shut'? I know I wouldn't be happy about it and would fight it all the way. The HMRC have altered Lisa-Marie's financial position and in any other business, would not have to pay back someone else's mistake!

As for your response to 'Leighann', you are spot on. Whether she saves the money or not, it is still income. She doesn't seem to understand that the amount awarded for 'child-care costs' isn't for Lisa-Marie to spend or save, it is for her to pay for child care.

Whether it is fair for tax-payers to subsidise other families child-care is another debate.

Oh yes I do understand that the amount awarded for childcare is for the child because I got the childcare element of the tax credit when the little one went to nursery which helped paying his fees and sending him to nursery had been a godsend because he was able to mix with other children and we were able to go out to work provide for him like Lisa Marie want's to for her son.

And I know that the tax credits/child benefit is classed as income, it's just that we choose to save it and budget our wages.

I'm all for Lisa Marie fighting the decision made by the HMRC to pay it back as she hasn't done anything wrong, she's provided all the information they required and still they have messed up. Good luck with your fight.

Leighann wrote:

Waynus71 wrote:

Darbees wrote: "Leighann...No it doesn't include child tax credit, we get the basic, think it's £11 per week and we do get £80 per month child benefit, but we don't class these as income to live on, they go straight into a savings account for our son and budget from our incomes." It doesn't matter what you class it as, it is income coming into the household from whatever the source. How you choose to spend it is your business but it can't be disregarded from total income.

I have just read two posts from you; one of which I agree entirely (above) and the other I find insulting. If someone had made a mistake with your payments, would you be thankful you could repay the overpayment back in installments and 'keep your mouth shut'? I know I wouldn't be happy about it and would fight it all the way. The HMRC have altered Lisa-Marie's financial position and in any other business, would not have to pay back someone else's mistake! As for your response to 'Leighann', you are spot on. Whether she saves the money or not, it is still income. She doesn't seem to understand that the amount awarded for 'child-care costs' isn't for Lisa-Marie to spend or save, it is for her to pay for child care. Whether it is fair for tax-payers to subsidise other families child-care is another debate.

Oh yes I do understand that the amount awarded for childcare is for the child because I got the childcare element of the tax credit when the little one went to nursery which helped paying his fees and sending him to nursery had been a godsend because he was able to mix with other children and we were able to go out to work provide for him like Lisa Marie want's to for her son. And I know that the tax credits/child benefit is classed as income, it's just that we choose to save it and budget our wages. I'm all for Lisa Marie fighting the decision made by the HMRC to pay it back as she hasn't done anything wrong, she's provided all the information they required and still they have messed up. Good luck with your fight.

Sorry if I clouded the issues. My point was that you were comparing her income with that of you and your partner, but was not doing so on a like-for-like basis. You were adding up all the individual credits she gets but not including them in your own total.

Other than that, I think we are in agreement. We both agree that, as the error was made by HMRC, they should not be able to claim the overpayment and should just ensure a correctly worked out award is given for 2010/11.

We also seem to be agreeing that the system is wrong, when a family work hard but are not much better off than a single parent trying to bring up a child from a broken relationship. This is even more unfair when it is the rest of us having to foot the bill.

My wife would love to have more children, but we simply cannot afford a bigger family. She has often quipped that she should give up work, leave me and sleep with me "unofficially". That way, she gets support to bring up our children, a nice house paid for and help with council tax etc. Then once the kids go to school, she moves back in with me. At least I hope it was just a quip! LOL

Morally it is surely wrong to not return something you have been given in error. Just because it's the government who can afford to make mistakes with anyones cash doesn't mean it's right for an individual to keep it. The government are making it very easy to pay it back over what will probably be several decades. In fact the child will probably be earning before it's paid off. That to me looks like a good deal.

Darbees wrote:
Morally it is surely wrong to not return something you have been given in error. Just because it's the government who can afford to make mistakes with anyones cash doesn't mean it's right for an individual to keep it. The government are making it very easy to pay it back over what will probably be several decades. In fact the child will probably be earning before it's paid off. That to me looks like a good deal.

I wouldnt be surprised if there is still more to this than we have been lead to believe.

Darbees wrote:
Morally it is surely wrong to not return something you have been given in error. Just because it's the government who can afford to make mistakes with anyones cash doesn't mean it's right for an individual to keep it. The government are making it very easy to pay it back over what will probably be several decades. In fact the child will probably be earning before it's paid off. That to me looks like a good deal.

Why is it morally wrong? If the receiver (Lisa-Marie) got the money KNOWINGLY it was for the wrong amount, I would tend to agree with you. However, if he didn't and budgetted accordingly, why should she have to change her plans/lifestyle to accommodate an error by someone else.

Put it this way, if I received money into my bank account KNOWING it wasn't mine and I spent it, I would expect to have to repay it and/or go to jail. But, if I put in a claim for say 6 years' worth of bank charges (prior to the ruling saying they were lawful) and my bank refunded £1000 too much, I didn't notice and spent that money, I know for a fact that the Financial Ombudsman and/or Financial Services Authority would insist I would not have to repay it.

Why is this example any different????

Waynus71...."I know for a fact that the Financial Ombudsman and/or Financial Services Authority would insist I would not have to repay it.

Why is this example any different????"

I'm not so sure that is fact. take another example where you bought some goods in good faith not knowing that they had been stolen or had outstanding HP such as a car. The person who owned the item which could be a previous owner, finance company or insurance would legally be able to take it back and you wouldn't get any repayment.

It's not her money and she will have been given very generous terms to repay it which will not affect her lifestyle. She can look back at the better lifestyle she enjoyed as a result of this error and think that it has virtually cost nothing but she cannot continue to enjoy that lifestyle unless she earns more.

The fundamental difference in your example is that the person had bought goods in good faith. The person that gave him the goods did not make a mistake, they were deliberately breaking the law.

In my example and the situation Lisa-Marie has found herself in, the people giving the money made a mistake. I work in finance and know that if the person receiving the money can prove that their financial position would change by repaying the money, they usually do not have to repay and the companies have to take the loss.

She may have been given 'very generous repayment terms', but the fact remains that she shouldn't have to repay it under any terms.

How do you know what the 'repayment terms are'? The story actually states that her money has reduced from around £942 p/mth to just £234, out of which she has to pay back the overpaid money. Her circumstances haven't changed and she still has to cloth and feed her son plus pay for his child care.

So I ask once more, how is this fair????

I don't know how much her repayments will be but I do know that they will not ask for an amount which will cause hardship amd I would be surprised if it was more than a fiver a week if that

Comparing her old monthly income with her current is irrelevant as she shouldn't have been receiving the old figure.

Politicians and everybody else are talking about saving money all the time and yet it doesn't seem to count when money has been wrongly given out to an individual and they ask for it back.

If this girl can't afford to support herself and her child she will have to find a better paid job like most people do, based on the courses she has attended she seems to be ambitious and so why are you supporting her to not work?

Darbees wrote:
I don't know how much her repayments will be but I do know that they will not ask for an amount which will cause hardship amd I would be surprised if it was more than a fiver a week if that Comparing her old monthly income with her current is irrelevant as she shouldn't have been receiving the old figure. Politicians and everybody else are talking about saving money all the time and yet it doesn't seem to count when money has been wrongly given out to an individual and they ask for it back. If this girl can't afford to support herself and her child she will have to find a better paid job like most people do, based on the courses she has attended she seems to be ambitious and so why are you supporting her to not work?

totaly agree im a single dad of 3 .2 who live with me and 1 who lives with his mum i pay £150.00 amonth to her .thats what the c.s .a have told me to pay.yet i only recive 13.44 for the two boys i have .so i had to get a better paid job

nippy2172 wrote:

Martin_Grogan_10 wrote: Maybe if she can not afford child care Bradley should go live with the father who can afford to and would be more than happy to without having to claim £11000 in benefits then she can concentrate on her career.

Well if that is the case why dont the father pay for the child care?? Oh no points scoring it seems by a bitter man ...The mother of your child is not sat on her backside sponging of the state . How typical " if she can't afford it let him live with me". And don't come out with the old "I PAY MORE THAN I HAVE TO BY THE CSA" . This had nothing to do with you the father of Bradley it was an article regarding the mother no mention of the father and how much he pays etcetc.. I t was small minded idiots on here that brought the father into it. He ought to be ashamed of hiself as I said earlier with his comments about the mother of his child. So glad not my son .....Good luck Lisa-marie in your battle with the good old inland rev and a bitter father of your son looks like your going to need it !!!!!

nippy2172
thank you for this comment it is soo true, i would not send send Bradley to his dads just because of this mistake!! thanks for your good luck and yes i need it ... i have needed the luck since 2006 ... me and Bradley do not need his farther or his help for that matter .... i have a new job and am doing GREAT without him and have done for the past year and half. thanks again

To you who did the calculations on how much i would get ... for a start you do not know how much wage i got so your calculations are wrong .... and the money from his farther is not much and that does not effect my tax credits .... people are saying think of it as a loan ..... get a grip .... you try living in rented accommodation (privately rented may i add.... i am not off a estate) paying bills and everything else as well as paying money back. i told the HMRC what i was doing and kept them up to date so this it their mistake not mine!!! you lot who think that i have more money to spare than you also need to get a grip because i don't .. i have my income and that is it ... the money i got pays for child care and a few bills so don't suggest when you know nothing. the gentleman who said he has 2 boys that live with him and the other child lives with the mother .... i think you are a good day although i do not know you ... there is not many dads who would do that and cope ... the gentleman who is paying for this 18 yrs old son ... the mother needs to get off her arse and get a job ha ha ...

tyker wrote:
she clearly knew it was wrong: she has a legal obligation to repay.

if i knew it was wrong i would not of claimed it so shut it .. it is people like you that judge people when you do not know them ...... the HMRC knew what my earning was and they said i was entitled to it .. at the end of the day i am not going to question it when i give them all the details they needed .... i was gong to work not sitting at home on my arse ... if i wasn't going to work i wouldn't of claimed it but unlike some i am not lazy and i do not find having a child a excuse not to go to work ... i have been out of work 8 months since i left school and 6 months was maternity leave so next time you want to say something about something you read make sure you read it right and don't judge them when you don't know them!!

goldenshots wrote:

Darbees wrote: I don't know how much her repayments will be but I do know that they will not ask for an amount which will cause hardship amd I would be surprised if it was more than a fiver a week if that Comparing her old monthly income with her current is irrelevant as she shouldn't have been receiving the old figure. Politicians and everybody else are talking about saving money all the time and yet it doesn't seem to count when money has been wrongly given out to an individual and they ask for it back. If this girl can't afford to support herself and her child she will have to find a better paid job like most people do, based on the courses she has attended she seems to be ambitious and so why are you supporting her to not work?

totaly agree im a single dad of 3 .2 who live with me and 1 who lives with his mum i pay £150.00 amonth to her .thats what the c.s .a have told me to pay.yet i only recive 13.44 for the two boys i have .so i had to get a better paid job

i do agree with you here but i had only done hairdressing and i wanted a new challenge and to do that i needed qualifications so i had to do a NVQ course in admin to do admin work as i could not find a job doing admin with no qualifications but you will be pleased to know i now have a new job .. i had to leave my placement on Wed 21st April and i started my new job Wed 28th April .. i had the interview a day after i had to leave my placement so yes i certainly am ambitious .... i am employed as well so i ill not have this problem this time round .. ta for your comment

albion wrote:

Darbees wrote: Morally it is surely wrong to not return something you have been given in error. Just because it's the government who can afford to make mistakes with anyones cash doesn't mean it's right for an individual to keep it. The government are making it very easy to pay it back over what will probably be several decades. In fact the child will probably be earning before it's paid off. That to me looks like a good deal.

I wouldnt be surprised if there is still more to this than we have been lead to believe.

there is no more to this story ... it is correct and i have kept them updated with everything

Looking for an apology is a non starter, as an ex Revenue employee I'll tell you that for free. I can see both sides not just this case but loads of people I know, they've f-ked up my claim too. Hate to say it but most HMRC employees who have to deal with this are too **** off to care.

That's good that you have a job and it shows that anyone who really wants work can get it if they try. Stick at it but if anything goes wrong again, it's best not to go to the paper unless you are very thick skinned. Good luck.

I would like to tell you all that i received a call this morning from the HMRC and it turns out that i was entitled to tax credits and child care while doing my NVQ so yet again they gave the wrong info ... too late now tho as i have had to give my NVQ up ... i only had 6 months left to do .... thanks for your luck and support to you who gave it :)