The investigation
Jump to
In the course of our investigation we made enquiries of the Cabinet Office, as the central sponsor for information assurance across government departments, HM Revenue & Customs, the Child Support Agency, and the Department for Work and Pensions. We considered their responses together with the papers Ms M’s Member of Parliament submitted with the complaint. We also examined the files of HM Revenue & Customs, the Child Support Agency, and the Department for Work and Pensions, their computer records, and their internal and external guidance on information sharing. We also considered the information and comments provided by Ms M over the telephone and in writing.
We gave the Cabinet Office, HM Revenue & Customs, the Child Support Agency, and the Department for Work and Pensions the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this report and I have taken their comments into account in coming to my final decision.
We gave Ms M the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this report and I have taken her comments into account in coming to my final decision.
I have not included in this report all of the information and comments considered in the course of the investigation but I am satisfied that nothing of significance to the complaint and my findings has been omitted.
What the investigation found
How I think the incorrect change to Ms M’s address occurred
HM Revenue & Customs’ Customer Operations and their National Insurance Contributions Office and the Department for Work and Pensions’ Jobcentre Plus have checked their records for the period in question. They say that they have found no correspondence from Mr A that was linked to, or would have impacted on, Ms M in any way, and I have no reason to doubt that that is true.
Ms M told us that she thought it unlikely that Mr A would have told the Tax Credit Office about his change of address. She thought that the National Insurance Contributions Office was a more likely source of the ‘paper’ document that the Tax Credit Office had received (paragraph 23), leading to the incorrect amendment to her records. She said that seemed more likely, because the timing of the amendment tied in with Mr A starting a new job. That seemed to be a possible explanation and, in order to assess whether it was the most likely one, we asked HM Revenue & Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions some further questions about how information is shared.
HM Revenue & Customs said that the only notification they receive when someone starts a new job is either form P45 (from the previous employer) or form P46 (from the new employer). Both of those forms are submitted in hard copy and there is no reason to send either form to the Tax Credit Office. The Department for Work and Pensions said that they do not send paper documents to the Tax Credit Office when one of their customers starts work. When they pass information to HM Revenue & Customs, they do that via their computer system or by telephone.
That suggests to me that, whilst Ms M’s suggestion is entirely plausible, it is unlikely to be correct. Although the evidence is not absolutely conclusive, I think it most likely that Ms M’s address was changed as a result of an inputting error by the Tax Credit Office in December 2006, rather than as a result of the National Insurance Contributions Office passing information to the Tax Credit Office.
The Tax Credit Office had a clear reason to have linked Ms M’s and Mr A’s details as they had very recently had a joint claim for tax credits. The Tax Credit Office have told us that, when an officer accesses their computer system to amend details on a joint tax credits claim, the system automatically brings up the screen showing the first applicant’s (Applicant 1’s) personal details. Therefore, if the details that need to be changed relate solely to the second applicant (Applicant 2), the officer responsible for making the amendment must deliberately access a different screen to amend the second applicant’s details. Ms M was listed as Applicant 1 on the joint claim, while Mr A was listed as Applicant 2. If the paper document received by the Tax Credit Office on 7 December 2006 was notice of Mr A’s new address – which seems likely – the officer responsible for amending the records may have changed Ms M’s address details by mistake, rather than accessing the separate screen with Mr A’s address details as Applicant 2. This would have meant that all subsequent correspondence intended for Ms M relating to her joint tax credit claim would have been sent to Mr A.
The incorrect change to Ms M’s address on her joint tax credit claim would then have been picked up by HM Revenue & Customs’ computer system and passed on to the other departments23 linked in to the computer network. That would have updated the Child Support Agency’s and the Department for Work and Pensions’ systems with the incorrect address for Ms M.
I cannot be sure that this is what happened but I can think of no other explanation for how the incorrect address for Ms M occurred. As far as I am aware, no other part of the wider governmental computer network had any reason to hold a computer record connecting Ms M and Mr A.
How the error in Ms M’s address came into the Department for Work and Pensions’ records
The Department for Work and Pensions told us that it was their Departmental Central Index, and not their Customer Information System, which incorrectly amended Ms M’s address records. The Department for Work and Pensions told us that Ms M’s live address on their Customer Information System has been correct since 23 August 2006, when she moved to her current address. They said that their Customer Information System has only ever shown an incorrect address for Ms M in its record of her address history. This is corroborated by the National Insurance Contributions Office’s records, which indicate that on 19 December 2007 HM Revenue & Customs’ Citizens Identity Database notified the Department for Work and Pensions’ Customer Information System, via the National Insurance Recording System of an ‘historical’ update to Ms M’s address. The Child Support Agency’s records from the Department for Work and Pensions’ Customer Information System show an entry in Ms M’s record changing her address to that of Mr A with a start and end date of 19 December 2007. It is not clear from the Child Support Agency’s records whether this change had any impact on Ms M’s live address. The Department for Work and Pensions say that in January 2008 their Customer Information System listed the 19 December 2007 update in Ms M’s address history only. There is no evidence to suggest that this update affected the live address held for Ms M by any government department.
The Child Support Agency’s investigations into Ms M’s complaint also indicated that the original incorrect address update came to them via the Department for Work and Pensions’ Departmental Central Index and that the Departmental Central Index was updated by the National Insurance Recording System. Any reference the National Insurance Contributions Office made to the Department for Work and Pensions’ Customer Information System in their correspondence with Ms M and her Member of Parliament in relation to the December 2006 update should have been to the Departmental Central Index.
As the Departmental Central Index is no longer an active system and, provided that Ms M’s address details have always been and remain correct on the Customer Information System, any repeat of the problems Ms M has experienced is unlikely. If – as I believe – the incorrect address update was due to an inputting error by the Tax Credit Office on the joint claim Ms M made with Mr A, then it is unlikely there will be any repeat of this problem as the joint tax credits claim details have been corrected and the claim is now closed.
Our investigation has uncovered no evidence to indicate that Ms M and Mr A’s records are linked on any live claim or live record on any of the computer systems managed by HM Revenue & Customs, the Child Support Agency or the Department for Work and Pensions.
How the error in Ms M’s address was corrected
The Child Support Agency have told us that all records of the original change to an incorrect address for Ms M have been removed from their system. Their computer system screen prints show an initial start date for Ms M’s current address of 23 August 2006 and an end date of 14 December 2006. There is then a gap in the record and a later start date of 11 October 2007 for the current address, which has remained on their system ever since. Therefore, it appears that the Child Support Agency amended Ms M’s address as a result of her telephone call to them on 11 October 2007. This change would then have updated the Department for Work and Pensions’ Departmental Central Index and their Customer Information System; and passed on the correct address for Ms M to all the other systems that held a record for her that were linked into the Departmental Central Index and the Customer Information System. As a result, from 11 October 2007, all live details held for Ms M appear to have been correct.
