Posts Tagged ‘refund’
Faulty software tells Brits they’re owed tax refunds
HM Revenue & Customs was at the centre of fresh controversy after it emerged that its computer system was telling people they were owed five-figure tax refunds.
The error was uncovered by chartered accountants Blick Rothenberg which noticed a note on the self-assessment account of one of its clients stating that a refund was due. The group then checked the accounts of all of its clients and found that in every case HMRC was saying it owed them sums of between a few pounds and £24,000.
Frank Nash, tax partner at Blick Rothenberg, said: “HMRC’s online system for self-assessment was down a couple of days ago. It was resurrected and when we went on to it to look at our clients’ statements of account to tell them what their current tax situation was, we noticed that everybody was due a repayment.”
He said that it was not an isolated incident, as the group had spoken to other tax firms, and all of their clients were told that they were due a refund too. He added that the firm knew it was an error as they knew what their clients were due to pay, and they were not owed refunds…
He also said the error might mean that people who were genuinely owed money by HMRC could have to wait for longer before they received their refund. The situation is also likely to cause confusion among self-assessment taxpayers who do not have an accountant…
The problem came to light as it was disclosed that HMRC more than tripled the pay of a key architect of its controversial new PAYE system to stop him walking out at a crucial moment.
A package worth £600,000 a year pro rata was agreed to keep Deepak Singh as acting chief information officer (CIO) for an extra three months after he failed to land the post permanently.
To further sweeten the deal keeping him on for the three months, the government paid £19,200 to help him find a new job after the temporary cover had finished.
Har!
Microsoft asks laid off workers to return part of severance
Microsoft says it made an accounting error when it laid off some employees last month and now feels the best way to correct the error is with what will likely add up to a public relations blunder.
The software giant, which recently laid off 1,400 employees, sent letters (see image below) this week to some of those former workers letting them know that their severance payouts were a bit too “generous” and respectfully requested that the former employees pay back that money, according to a report Saturday on TechCrunch.
“An inadvertent administrative error occurred that resulted in an overpayment in severance pay by Microsoft,” the letter states. “We ask that you repay the overpayment and sincerely apologize for any inconvenience to you.”
A Microsoft spokesperson confirmed that the authenticity of a letter posted on TechCrunch, but declined further comment, saying it was “a private matter between the company and the affected people.”
There are veiled threats, of course. How else would you expect Microsoft to deal with their own mistake?
Think the U.S. leads governing on behalf of corporations?
British shoppers could lose their right to a refund on faulty goods if plans by the European Union get the go-ahead.
Consumers can now choose to reject faulty goods, or goods that are not the same as they agreed to buy, and get a refund. But the European Commission wants to water down these rights to harmonise the law – most EU countries only give the choice of a replacement or a repair.
While the Law Commissions and consumer watchdog Which? agree that the law should be harmonised, they have said that UK shoppers should not be left worse off. The Law Commission of England and Wales has launched a consultation on the issue and wants input from shoppers. ‘We believe that retaining the right to reject is crucial for consumer confidence, and our research shows that consumers want this,’ said David Hertzell, the commissioner leading the project.
The commission has suggested tweaking existing law to include making shoppers claim a refund within 30 days of purchase. At present there is no limit, but in practice this is at the retailer’s discretion.
True, in the United States we have diddly-squat for legal rights as consumers. The fine print warrantees offered by manufacturers and retailers typically is the only grounds for suit.
There is no automatic support for consumers from the government. Fortunately, most retailers aren’t dumb enough, greedy enough to screw unhappy customers badly enough to lose their attention.
I guess that isn’t the case in Europe and the U.K..
