Skip to main content

Members: Correspondence

Volume 468: debated on Monday 26 November 2007

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to reply to the letters from the right hon. Member for North East-Hampshire of 21 August and 19 June 2007 on the tax credit problems of the right hon. Member's constituent Mrs. Thayre. (164104)

I understand that the two letters in question were addressed to the Chairman of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and that he wrote to the right hon. Gentlemen in reply on 22 November.

Although it is HM Revenue and Customs practice to reply to the majority of letters from Members within three weeks, following the administrative issue I referred to in my statement of 25 July 2007, Official Report, columns 62-3WS, some parts of HMRC's tax credits business have been subject to delays. HMRC regret this and will continue to try to deal with all cases as quickly as possible.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the reasons are for his Department setting 25 December as the date by which to reply to the letter of 21 June from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw; (167509)

(2) by what means his Department plans to reply to the letter of 21 June from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, on tax credits, as stated in the letter of 16 October to the hon. Member.

Following the administrative issue I referred to in my statement of 25 July 2007, Official Report, columns 62-63WS, some parts of HMRC’s tax credits business have, unfortunately, been subject to delays. HMRC regret this and will continue to try to deal with all cases as quickly as they can.

These delays are a result of HMRC having to look again at cases potentially affected by the procedural error and to ensure that households/individuals affected by the error are not given incorrect advice in advance of their award being reviewed. The date indicated in the recent letter to the hon. Member was intended to be helpful and indicate the latest date by which HMRC hoped to have resolved the inquiry.

HMRC wrote a letter to the hon. Member on 18 October 2007 in reply to his letter of the 21 June 2007.