TC09532 - [2025] UKFTT 00568 (TC)

Between 22 April 2023 and 7 August 2024, the Appellant engaged with HMRC’s complaint process.

In the Appellant’s initial complaint, made to HMRC on 22 April 2023, the Appellant apparently complained about the time HMRC was taking to make repayment of the VAT reclaimed by the Appellant in its VAT returns. In their letter of 8 June 2023, HMRC accepted that they had delayed in repaying the VAT claimed for the period 06/21. However, HMRC asserted that the Appellant’s decision not to file VAT returns for subsequent VAT periods was the cause of the delay in HMRC processing repayments for those periods. HMRC offered £60 redress and also offered to reimburse any unnecessary fees incurred by the Appellant as a result of having to chase HMRC for repayment. Mr Moran was invited to submit receipted invoices or records of the telephone calls he had made to HMRC.

The Appellant made a further complaint to HMRC. By letter dated 26 October 2023, HMRC increased the redress to £250 but otherwise did not uphold the further complaint. HMRC considered they were entitled to conduct credibility checks of the VAT returns filed by the Appellant, and so HMRC did not accept Mr Moran’s complaint that HMRC’s delays had caused cashflow issues for the Appellant.

The Appellant continued with its complaint to HMRC. On 29 April 2024, the Appellant’s agent made a complaint to HMRC’s tier 2 complaints team, with an accompanying statement setting out that the Appellant wished to claim £3 million from HMRC as compensation for the business and personal loss that Mr Moran considered that he and the Appellant had lost. In this statement the agent also stated that the Appellant had ceased trading in November 2022.

By letter dated 7 August 2024, HMRC refused to make additional redress and directed Mr Moran to the Adjudicator’s office if the Appellant remained dissatisfied. HMRC noted that the VAT returns for the VAT periods 09/21 – 12/22 had not been submitted until 4 May 2023, and pointed out that it was this late submission that had delayed repayment of the VAT claimed in those returns. HMRC also noted that although the Appellant had claimed for the time of his agent in chasing repayment, the only telephone contact they had received during the relevant period had been from Mr Moran himself.