Reply to: Freedom of Information Request for HMRC statistics on contractors

[DaveB]

It didn't come up as an option

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organis...iate_limit.pdf

If the cost exceeds the appropriate limit thay can choose to release the information and charge the recipient for the costs involved.

Since they know the costs exceed the limit they should know how much it will actually costs. It would not be unreasonable , IMO, to ask for these costs with a view to paying it to obtain the information.

There is also an expectation from the ICO that they should be able to provide cogent information to the applicant on how the costs were arrived at.

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organis...iate_limit.pdf

Finally, there is always the option to raise the issue with the ICO if HMRC continue to stall.

[centurian]

To be fair looking at many of the FOI requests i am surprised so many are fulfilled within a reasonable timescale and accuracy. The time it takes to get anything done in gov organisations is a pain so turning some of the more complex ones is pretty impressive.

WHS

Here's how a public sector shop uses the £600 excuse

2 hours for FOI team to process the original request
4 hours for the appropriate department to do a high level investigation as to whether they hold the information.
1 hour for the department manager to plan the request
4 hours allocate to process the actual request
2 hours for peer level review
2 hours for informatics head review of the release of the information
2 hours for the FOI team to review and respond

Basis cost is £36ph - approx 50K per year with pension and employers NI and other costs included - this is an average of the 1st level pen pusher, to the expert - probably not that far out.

Total cost = £612 (17 x 36)

Rejected....

Of course, if they want to respond, because it's generally favourable to them, they strangely find a way of doing it < £600

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Is there any option for individuals or organisations to pay for the FOI request where the cost is justifiably over £600?

It didn't come up as an option

[mudskipper]

This sent today:

HMRC are proposing legislation in the form of changes to tax relief on Travel and Subsistence and also IR35 and they have stated that the changes are required as the Treasury have been negatively financially impacted. In order to make the assertion one assumes that studies have been conducted and an analysis produced to support it; the request put forward is merely asking for part of the information contained within such an analysis. Therefore, I fail to see why such a request would take in excess of 3.5 working days to fulfil and would ask, respectfully, that it be revisited.

Is there any option for individuals or organisations to pay for the FOI request where the cost is justifiably over £600?

[smatty]

Isn't #2 (PSCs) a specific question on the tax return for the last few years? Should be a single database query to give you that number....

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

This sent today:

HMRC are proposing legislation in the form of changes to tax relief on Travel and Subsistence and also IR35 and they have stated that the changes are required as the Treasury have been negatively financially impacted. In order to make the assertion one assumes that studies have been conducted and an analysis produced to support it; the request put forward is merely asking for part of the information contained within such an analysis. Therefore, I fail to see why such a request would take in excess of 3.5 working days to fulfil and would ask, respectfully, that it be revisited.

[northernladuk]

At the start of that paragraph, they state they have hold information that falls within the description specified. Then they state that it would exceed 3½ working days to determine if they hold the information. They've not got their ducks in a row, that's for sure.

To be fair looking at many of the FOI requests i am surprised so many are fulfilled within a reasonable timescale and accuracy. The time it takes to get anything done in gov organisations is a pain so turning some of the more complex ones is pretty impressive.

[LondonManc]

I can confirm that HMRC holds information that falls within the description specified in your request. However, we estimate that the cost of complying with your request would exceed the appropriate limit of £600. The appropriate limit is specified in regulations and for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3½ working days determining if the department holds the information

At the start of that paragraph, they state they have the information that falls within the description specified. Then they state that it would exceed 3½ working days to determine if they hold the information. They've not got their ducks in a row, that's for sure.

[PurpleGorilla]

Submit a request for a review on that basis that HMRC officials are quoting statistics that would have to have been based on this information, so it must be available in some form?

Exactly, the stats are already compiled if they are quoting them, so it should not take long at all.

[northernladuk]

HMRC are notorious for pulling the £600 limit - it seems they use that excuse for practically anything other than stuff they have already released.

Of course, if they can't produce this information for £600, it means they must have really crap systems / very stupid people.

However, HMRC consistently appear to be content to be considered stupid than release the information requested.

I think they justify the limit on the basis that they need a dozen people to vet the release of information, each of whom are on £50ph etc.

Or are staffed by expensive contractors......

[SueEllen]

Submit a request for a review on that basis that HMRC officials are quoting statistics that would have to have been based on this information, so it must be available in some form?

This needs to be in the Press - yet another government department making up figures.

The traditional "right wing" press would be interested.

[DaveB]

HMRC have been throwing out a lot of figures lately surrounding the amount of money that contractors cost the Exchequer; as part of our submission on the T&S consultation I tried to find statistics that would either prove or disprove those figures. As I found diddly squat I decided to put in a FOI request:

"Historically, the number of contractors who work in the UK has been unknown with
the ONS only being able to provide information under the wider heading of
Temporary Workers.
Now that the agency reporting requirements have come into force could you please
confirm numbers of workers who are engaged through recruitment agencies and
operating through 1. umbrella companies 2. single person Limited Companies
(PSC's)."

I received this response this morning:

<HMRC Twatwaffle>

Submit a request for a review on that basis that HMRC officials are quoting statistics that would have to have been based on this information, so it must be available in some form?

[BoredBloke]

How piss poor are their systems if it would take 1 person 3.5 days to deliver that information.

[pr1]

definitely put in an appeal - ridiculous they can be proposing the necessity for legislative change off numbers they can't justify

[WordIsBond]

So, they are using numbers that they don't even have from a project that hasn't been completed to argue that legislation should be written.

Their numbers are half-baked and so are their legislative proposals. I think this response is actually to our benefit -- what could make it clearer that they aren't ready to make any proposals or ask us to provide suggested counter proposals? By their own admission they don't even understand the problem yet.