Revenue Arguments Against Penalty Quashing Condemned by Tribunal

A bit more law for you on how HMRC tax penalties may be overcome. And if you like what you read then grab http://www.breakinglaw.co.uk/2018/06/tax-penalties-may-be-unlawful-latest.html and you might just want to buy my book at the same time so that I can afford to pay my tax bill due at the end of this month).

You thought that ignorance of the law was no defence, didn't you? Well it sort of might be when we come to whether you have a reasonable excuse for not paying tax penalties. That was made clear by the Upper Tribunal of the Tax and Chancery Chamber (it wasn't my idea to call them that!) in Perrin v Commissioners for HMRC [2018] UKUT 156 (TC). If the excuse was objectively reasonable then it might lead to penalties being quashed. The Tribunal said that some requirements of the law were well-known, simple and straightforward but others were less so. It would be a matter of judgment for tax tribunals in each case whether it was objectively reasonable for a particular taxpayer to have been ignorant of the requirement in question and for how long. 

HMRC was also condemned for its habit of putting forward arguments that an excuse had to be based on some unforeseeable or inescapable event or an unexpected or unusual event. That was not the law. In future cases where these arguments were trotted out, HMRC might be ordered to pay the costs of a taxpayer who had successfully appealed against penalties.

Tears And Tardis At Waitrose

Long suffering followers of this blog are painfully aware that I can be reduced to tears by false price labelling in shops and by the inadequacies of the Waitrose car park in Richmond-upon-Thames. But I was confident that when I popped into the Waitrose branch at Havant, Hants the other weekend, I  would emerge with dry eyes. It was not to be.

A price label by the displayed bottles of Volvic water proclaimed that they were ‘Two for £1.’ But at the checkout I was charged 67 pence for each of eight bottles. Holding back the vapours, I queried the overcharge. An urgent investigation was initiated. It transpired that the offer had expired and the price label had wrongly remained in position. I was immediately credited with the overcharge. How many customers had happily overpaid, we do not know. The staff dealt with the matter in a correct and efficient manner but this should not have happened. As I explain in my book Breaking Law, it is an offence for a trader to mislead a customer about the price of a product. The trader will only have a defence if it can show that it made a mistake, the offence was due to an accident or another cause beyond its control and also that it took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid an offence. Not easy to show all that. And if you have actually paid over too much money because you were misled over price then there are some lovely civil remedies available to you which I cover in the book (yes, that book again).

I took up what was the car park enigma by e-mail. Here's the exchange.

From: STEPHEN GOLD 
Sent: 25/06/2018 10:29
To: customersupport@waitrose.co.uk
Subject: Car park at your Havant store

I am intrigued. The entrance barrier at your Havant store car park is down (and so a ticket has to be withdrawn from the machine at the barrier in order to raise the barrier) but the exit barrier remains up and no charge is levied upon or prior to exit. What is the point of keeping the entrance barrier down and what a waste of redundant car park tickets? Also, the car park booth appears to be very sick in that it is covered in bandages or such like as if waiting to be transported to hospital or auditioning for the Doctor Who tardis understudy?

Best wishes

Stephen Gold

Waitrose Customer Service To: STEPHEN GOLD 

Waitrose Customer Feedback

Thanks for getting in touch with your queries about the car park at our Havant shop, Stephen. This does sound like quite the mystery so I'd like to thank you for bringing this to our attention.
I've had a chat with the shop today and they've let me know that when the car park entrance barrier is down but the exit barrier is up, this is done to deter those who aren't shopping with us from using the car park. Unfortunately there are occasions when both barriers are up that people will take advantage of the car park due to its location, which then means that people wanting to shop with us aren't able to find a space. The shop have found that by having the entrance barrier down only those who are wanting to shop with us use the car park.
With regards to the booth's apparent audition as a Tardis understudy, the shop have let me know that unfortunately it's seen better days due to people driving in to it. The shop have reported this to the relevant team but don't yet have a finalised date for when the repairs are going to be completed. Please however rest assured that they're aware of this and have taken the necessary steps to get this sorted.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us about this and for giving me the chance to look into this for you. If you have any other queries or concerns please don't hesitate to contact us again.
We're passionate about continually improving the service we offer our customers. If you'd like to feed back on the service I've given you, please click on the link below (omitted) to take part in our quick survey. As a thank you, we’ll also enter you into our monthly prize draw where you could win £500 in gift cards. 
Kind regards 
Iain 
Waitrose Customer Care

I'm not convinced that anyone would be fooled into believing they might have to pay for parking when they can see the exit barrier up as they enter. But then I haven't been on a Waitrose training course.

Oh and just one other thing. This was the price ticket displayed at the Wimbledon branch of Waitrose the other day. Pretty enticing, eh?

Happy shopping. And parking.

M&S Coffee Strength: The Lowdown

You may reckon that Brexit is a worry. It's nothing compared to the dilemma presented by a visit to a Marks & Spencer cafe. Which size coffee to order. You might have thought that the quantity of coffee injected into a cup would always increase pro rata with the size of the cup. Not so, it appears. Medium and large get two shots: large gets more milk. So if you thought you would be able to keep awake for a couple of days by downing a large as against a medium, you would be mistaken. I thought you should know. 

My short exchange today with M&S Customer Service and which is below reveals all. By the way, they came back to me within five hours of my enquiry. Really on the ball. Must be drinking medium or small with two shots. 

  

On 24/06/2018 11:09, STEPHEN GOLD wrote:

Subject :Contact Us-In-store service and feedback

Product Description:coffees 

Store Name :Havant 

Date of visit :23/06/2018

Your coffees (and other beverages) come in three sizes. In relation to coffees, I have noticed that the larger the size, the weaker the drink. This leads me to the conclusion that the same quantity of coffee goes into the cup, whatever the size ordered and that the larger the size, the more the milk (and froth). Am I correct? If so, IY shall restrict myself to the smallest size in future. If I am incorrect, what is the explanation for the weakness I have identified, please?

On 24/06/2018 15.53 M&S SERVICE Team replied: 

Hi Stephen

Thanks for getting in touch with us about our coffee. I'm sorry to hear you've found the coffee is weaker the larger the cup size.

I've just spoken to Gemma, who works in the cafe at Havant, and she's let me know that one shot of coffee is used for a small cup and two shots of coffee are used for the medium and large cups. The large cup will be slightly weaker as this will have more milk in than the medium. She also let me know that they do offer extra shots but these are for a small charge.

I hope this has helped Stephen. Thanks again for getting in touch and we look forward to seeing you in store again soon.

Best wishes

Sian 

Retail Customer Services

Your M&S Customer Service

Child Support Reduced For Overnight Contact: New Case

You wouldn't try and get increased overnight contact with your child simply to reduce how much you have to pay by way of child support maintenance, would you? Perish the thought. Hold on to your seats and your World Cup programme as I tell you that some parents do precisely that!  The reason is that the amount of child support maintenance which is payable is reduced by how much overnight contact takes place so long as the overnights are for at least 52 nights in a year.  For example, the maintenance bill goes down by one-seventh for 52 to 103 nights in a year but by two-sevenths for 104 to 155 nights in a year. You'll find out how child support works from the standpoint of the parent who pays and the parent who receives in my book Breaking Law and you will also find there a template agreement which can be used where it could be more advantageous than child support or where child support does not apply. 

In an appeal case* just decided by the upper tribunal of the administrative appeals chamber (now that's a mouthful for you) it was confirmed that under the current law, what is relevant is the number of nights the payer is expected to have overnight contact during the 12 month period ahead of when maintenance is being assessed. The regulations provide that when deciding on any reduction to be made consideration is to be given to the terms of any contact agreement or court order or, if there is neither, whether a pattern of shared care has already been established over the past 12 months. The upper tribunal held that there was no requirement to adopt what was in the agreement or order or what the shared care pattern had been. All that was required was that consideration was to be given to them although there would have to be a proper basis for concluding that an arrangement was not going to reoccur in the future 12 months.

The appeal centered on the payer’s attempt to have maintenance assessed on the basis of a shorter future period of 12 months which the Child Maintenance Service can do if this is considered to be ‘appropriate’. The father’s quest was to have a four month period only to be taken into account. He argued that averaging over 12 months did not achieve a fair and equitable result because the far greater tine he was to have with the child during the four months was watered down when it was added to the 12 month residue. If that argument has succeeded, then he would have had no liability for the four months. But it failed before the first tier tribunal and on appeal. The former had decided that 12 months leveled out the peaks and troughs. The payee had contended that the four month period had been a one-off. The upper tribunal stated that a one-off period could quite rationally be subsumed in a 12 month period, particularly where it did not arise under any agreement and where it was an exception to a previously existing settled pattern of shared care. Its very exceptionality on the other hand might provide a basis for shrinking the 12 month period. There were no hard and fast rules. 

*JS v SSWP and another [2018] UKUT 181 (AAC)

Credit Card Blocked Without Notice: Red Face In Queue: Compensation?

I've had to work hard to secure £50 compensation from Partnership Card (and they didn't enter me for a prize draw) for blocking my credit card when I say ' To hell with your terms and conditions. You were wrong!' Here's my exchange. I've edited Partnership's correspondence. More apologies and 'You can go to the Ombudsman' stuff omitted.

Me to Partnership Card on 25 April 2018           

' ....

On 19 April 2018 I received your statement for my account dated 15 April 2018. It showed that no payment had been credited for the immediately preceding month. In fact, I had given instructions to my bankers First Direct on 23 March 2018 to pay the full account debit balance before the due date. I immediately contacted First Direct who accepted that it had failed to implement those instructions and agreed to refund to me the interest charge and default fee you had debited to the account.* I gave instructions for payment of the full debit balance under the latest statement which you should now have received.

On 21 April 2018 I presented my Partnership card twice at Waitrose and once at another retail outlet to pay for transactions but suffered the public embarrassment and inconvenience of ‘declines’ on each occasion. I immediately telephoned you to enquire why this had happened and was informed that there had been a block on the card because of the non-payment of the minimum sum required under the March 2018 statement and that it was standard practice to impose this block when the next statement was issued.

On 23 April 2018 I received your letter dated 14 April 2018 which was presumably in standard terms relating to an overdue payment of £28.82.

In neither the 15 April 2018 statement nor the subsequently received 14 April 2018 letter was I informed that my card would be blocked. It may be that your standard terms and conditions permit blockage in the circumstances. That is not the point. Custom and practice and fairness of banking conduct demanded that I should have received advance notice of blockage. In fact, the 15 April 2108 statement informed me that all I was required to do was to pay the minimum amount by 10 May 2018.

Given the length of time I have been your customer and the conduct of my account to date, I am appalled at your conduct and require you to put forward a proposal to compensate me for embarrassment, inconvenience and wastage of time in dealing with this matter that you have caused me. I acknowledge that First Direct’s failure is a matter between me and them.

I do not wish to discuss this matter by telephone. Please write.'

Partnership Card to me on 3 May 2018

'Thank you for your recent correspondence informing us of your concerns....Unfortunately, due to the non-payment of your statement balance in March a temporary block was placed on your account as the statement balance was overdue.

I would like to advise you that when an account becomes overdue it is automatically referred to our Collections Department. Please be assured we aim to contact our customer at the earliest opportunity, in order to establish whether an oversight with the payment has occurred, irrespective of the amount. I do apologise if you did not receive notification in this instance.

If the full payment is not received by the due date, our system will automatically apply a late fee payment and/or an interest charge as this is part of the terms and conditions of your account.

....

Upon reviewing your account I can confirm that the block has since been removed and you are able to make successful transactions.

May I once again apologise for any inconvenience you have been caused.'

Me to Partnership Card on 10 May 2018

'I have your grudging letter dated 03 May 2018 and received today, seven days later. It is a pity that you do not cause your post to be delivered as promptly as you apply a temporary block.  You emerge from your pre-complaint conduct and your response to my complaint (the latter compounding the former) as an unfriendly financial institution which gives not a fig for the inconvenience and embarrassment it causes to its customers.  I shall seriously consider closing my account with you.

You do not have the decency to make an unconditional apology. Your apology is qualified. You state that ‘if’ I did not receive advance notice of the temporary block then you apologise ‘in this instance’. You know I did not receive advance notice because I told you so and your computer records would confirm that to be the case. Custom, practice and fairness (as I have already stated) demanded that you should have given me advance notice. That was a serious failure on your part. Further, notwithstanding your terms and conditions, you should not have elected in this instance to rely on them, given that the minimum payment in arrear was a modest £28.88 as against a credit limit of £9,300 and given the length of time I have been your customer and the conduct of my account over this period. Your decision to block represented a failure to exercise your discretion on rational grounds or otherwise in a fair manner.

You chose to totally ignore the fact the notification you did give to me by letter dated 14 April 2018 failed to warn of the intention to block and merely called for me to pay £28.82. You further chose to ignore my request for your compensation proposal, presumably because you are too stingy to put one forward unless forced to do so.

I call on you to deal with my complaint in a proper manner and not to close your eyes to your dereliction of duty. If you fail to do this within the next seven days, I shall refer my complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.'

Partnership Card to me on 31 May 2018

Thank you for your letter dated 10 May 2018. I am sorry it has taken longer than anticipated to get back to you with a response regarding your ongoing concerns.

I am sorry if you felt my letter dated 7 May 2018 did not take account the inconvenience and embarrassment caused when your Partnership Card was recently declined.

I acknowledge your dissatisfaction with the level of service you have received, and the approach we have taken in handling the matter . It is evident from your comments we have failed to meet with your expectations.

....

I sincerely apologise for the negative customer experience you have had with us. I have noted that as a customer of 14 years you have not been treated in an acceptable manner and I understand your dissatisfaction with the way this matter has been dealt with.

....

I have noted your comments with regards to compensation for what has been a very trying and testing time and I do apologise for not dealing with this in my initial response. It was never my intention to cause you further frustration or inconvenience.

....

As a gesture of goodwill and in the interest of customer relations I have today applied £50.00 credit adjustment to your next monthly statement.

....'

* In response to my request to First Direct for compensation (not, I hasten to add, for the same inconvenience etc covered in my Partnership Card complaint) the bank now says it has made checks and it was not to blame. I could not have successfully confirmed my instructions to it,  they say. The interest charge and default fee imposed by Partnership Card have still been reimbursed to me by First Direct. To be continued!

Cracking The Code At Waitrose: Car Park Blues

I owe it to you to keep you informed. About the car park problems at the Richmond-Upon-Thames branch of Waitrose, of course (see http://www.breakinglaw.co.uk/search/label/Waitrose for background as an alternative to a sleeping tablet). I'll let you know if I win the £500 gift card. In fact, I might provide you with a free coffee - provided you have your own cup.

From: STEPHEN GOLD 

Sent: 02/06/2018 12:36

To: customersupport@waitrose.co.uk

Subject: Car Park at Richmond-upon-Thames Store

Greetings, My Long-Suffering Recipients of Justified Groans

It had been my misfortune to feel compelled over a long period of time to draw attention to the malfunctioning of various aspects of the car park at your Richmond-Upon-Thames store and the dangerous dangling metal on one of its floors: indeed, most recently to the automated announcement  in one of your car park lifts to the effect that such lift was going down rather than up. Mercifully, everything has eventually been fixed except that I cannot vouch for whether the announcer can yet determine in which direction her lift is travelling. 

Alas, there is a further problem associated with the car park which is of long standing but with which I have not chosen to trouble you previously. However, it has escalated and I really do think that your local management should strain itself to do something about it. Let me explain the problem. In order to qualify for a discounted car park charge on account of the amount of money spent by the parker at the store, it is necessary for the parker to have their car park ticket stamped at the checkout when making payment. There is a machine operated by the cashier which effects the stamping or, more precisely, there should be a machine at the checkout which effects the stamping . For several years, your resources did not extend to arming the cashier at the end till of the battery of tills (furthest from the front of the store) with the necessary machine which necessitated the aforesaid cashier having to rise from their chair and disturb a neighbouring cashier to do the stamping for them. Recently  the end cashier was blessed with their own machine for which I congratulated the cashier on that till the other week and expressed my sympathy for what she and her colleagues had had to endure. She looked at me knowingly and thankfully. 

But machines have now gone from several other tills including the till which I patronised yesterday. On this occasion the particular cashier did not rise from her position but instructed me to accost her neighbouring cashier to engage in the stamping of my ticket. The neighbouring cashier did oblige but doing so created an inconvenience for both of us and a dirty look from the shopper who she was attending when I made my approach. Of course, I could have waited until the cashier had finished with the customer in question but this would have resulted in a longer stay and hence the risk of a higher car park charge.

If you will tell me how many stamping machines have disappeared I will happily endeavour to manufacture some Heath Robinson replacements for you at no expense to Waitrose.

I hope you will not regard me as pedantic or a trouble maker. I simply wish to see the store run efficiently and to the mutual benefit of Waitrose and its customers.

I am

Stephen Gold

Waitrose Customer Service

To: Stephen Gold

Re Car Park at Richmond-upon-Thames Store

06 June 2018 09.01

Dear Mr Gold,

As promised, I have been in contact with a member of the branch management team, James.

James advised me that all checkouts were supplied with a stamp machine, however since going live they have been removed on several checklist due to faults. 

The machines sit with the manufacture to replace and fix however James advised this is no easy task. Each location has its own code (hub who manage our car park, manage over 3500 across the UK). and rebuilding a new code takes time. 

James would like me to reassure you, that the management team are very well aware of the problem. James mentioned that he would like customers to raise any concerns directly with him, or the manager on duty, so that he can help straight away.

Myself and James would like to apologise for any disappointment and inconvenience caused.

We're passionate about continually improving the service we offer our customers. If you'd like to feed back on the service I've given you, please click on the link below to take part in our quick survey. As a thank you, we’ll also enter you into our monthly prize draw where you could win £500 in gift card.

[link provided]

Kind regards 

David  

Waitrose Customer Care

Divorcing, Dissolving or Separating? Are you free on 11 October 2018?

Thursday 11 October 2018 from 10am until 5pm. No, I'm not inviting you round to my place. I haven't got enough cups, the place is littered with law books and, anyway, I am cutting my toe nails that day.

In fact, it's the day of a major conference on financial remedies - what you apply for to settle the finances in matrimonial proceedings - being held in London and organised by the publishers of At a Glance which is the bible of lawyers who deal with theses cases. The conference will have the current Deputy President of the Supreme Court as its keynote speaker (he is about to retire) and will be chaired by family law High Court Judge Mr Justice Mostyn. Other speakers and contributors will include a retired family law High Court judge, family law barristers and pension law experts.

So what's this got to do with you? If you are going it alone in a  financial remedy application because you cannot afford legal fees for the whole case and do not wish to follow any of the paths I write about in Breaking Law to get some expert help, then you might wish to attend the conference and pick up some tips as you hear from the professionals who judge these cases, advocate in them and give pension evidence in them. Don't even think about asking them to advise you in your case, though. 

The conference is intended for lawyers and other professionals involved in these cases and be warned that talks will not be pitched for litigants in person. But would you be let in? I have asked the organisers. Yes, you would. But you would have to pay. £345 if you book by 31 July 2018: £414 after. VAT is included. You'll get lunch.

For more,  see www.ataglanceconference.co.uk