Lies and damned lies

There's bullshit and then there's bullshit.

The first kind you expect and it easily identified by the source. The energy company salesperson who promises you can save money by switching before they actually know your usage. The call centre operator who refers to your 'recent accident' in broken English or claims to have been authorised by the Ministry of Justice to call you about your payment protection insurance. Most adverts. Politicians. Energy company salespeople.

Most rational people can cope with this kind by simply ignoring it. (Actually we now don't even bother answering the phone to unidentified phone callers, or we pick up and remain silent. The Telephone Preference Service worked for a while but is useless against foreign call centres.

Then there's the kind of bullshit from people that you ought to be able to rely upon. It comes from official sources; most people would take it as correct and it's only if you dig a little that you determine it's true nature.

The  bullshit, for example, recently spouted down a telephone line by Steve Bampton, an employee of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.

Sarah, who came to Nottingham last year, was living with friends when she met Jason, a work colleague. Jason was sharing a house with 3 other guys at the time and they both felt it would be more civilised to rent an apartment together. They eventually found a suitable 2-bedroomed place and signed as joint tenants.

Although Sarah works all the hours she employer offers, her (minimum) wage is so low that the UK government has to top it up with Working Tax Credit (WTC). Unfortunately her claim has been refused on the grounds that Mr Bampton feels she has not proved she is a single person. The implication is that she has an "undisclosed partner", Jason.

It carries no weight that two people on low incomes have gone to the expense of renting 2-bedroomed accommodation, do not share a bank account, and can demonstrate that the rent is paid in equal shares.

When asked about this over the phone Mr Bampton told me:

1. "For the purposes of tax credits they live in the same property and share the bills and therefore it does not matter if they are in a relationship or not - they are assessed as a couple"
   
   Actually, no. The very manual which the HMRC has prepared for its staff states:
   
   "The customer may admit they live in the same household as the suspected partner but that does not automatically mean they are Living Together as Husband and Wife (LTAHAW)." and
   
   "Even if you establish a couple are living in the same house this does not necessarily mean they are LTAHAW"
   
2. Next he said: "For tax credits we use different criteria from those used by the DWP for other benefits"
   
   Actually, no. On this, the HMRC's own manual says:
   
   "Since 1977 the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP - formerly the Benefits Agency) has followed a standard approach to the question of whether a man and woman are living together based on a list of criteria to be considered both individually and as a whole. Working Families’ Tax Credit (WFTC) adopted the same criteria and this has continued for WTC and CTC"
3. And finally: "Tax credits are not counted as a benefit when the government reports statistics on benefits."

Well I can't comment on the final claim, but if Mr Bampton - not an office junior but a decision maker in the HMRC Tax Credits Compliance team, no less - is either so misinformed about his employer's rules or else is deliberately breaking those rules (to meet an unpublished quota for claim rejections?) then we must assume that it, too, is bullshit.

The worst of it is that Sarah will now have to appeal against Bampton's decision and may wait 12 months or more for her appeal to be heard, during which time she will not be getting the wage top-up that the government begudgingly admits she needs. Makes you proud to be British, doesn't it.