2 Getting the correct advice by telephone
9. The Directorate used a range of measures to
monitor the quality of advice provided to callers and help develop
the competency of staff in providing advice. These include customer
satisfaction surveys and a quality assurance process that checks
a sample of individual calls. Its quality assurance work measures
the quality of advice provided against three criteria: the accuracy
of advice given in terms of adherence to prescribed call scripts
and procedures; proper use of the security process to check the
caller's identity; and the correctness of follow-up action. In
2008-09, around 6.8 million (11%) of calls handled by the Directorate
failed the accuracy check as the call script and procedures were
not followed in full. In the same year, 6% of calls failed the
checks on security and on follow-up action.[11]
10. The accuracy check is based on testing whether
the advisor has followed in full the pre-determined script. Failure
to follow the script exactly will mean the call will fail the
accuracy check but the customer may nevertheless still receive
the correct advice.[12]
Consequently the Department did not know how often inaccurate
advice was given to callers or the nature of that incorrect advice.
In 2008-09, one-quarter of complaints received by the Directorate
related to incorrect advice, and the Department recognised that
providing incorrect advice was not acceptable. The Chartered Institute
of Taxation, however, had expressed concern that the level of
incorrect advice could be as high as 80% in more complex cases.[13]
11. Customers can ask for the information provided
during a call to be reviewed if they believe they have been misadvised.
Except where specifically provided for by statute, customers have
no legal entitlement to financial redress for mistakes made by
the Department. The Department confirmed that it operates an ex-gratia
policy under which, if a customer could show they had incurred
an actual financial loss as a result of a mistake by the Department,
it would consider offering redress for that loss, in line with
Cabinet Office guidance. In the interests of natural justice and
as a gesture of goodwill, it would also consider making a small
payment to compensate people who had suffered significant worry
or distress as a result of a mistake the Department had made.[14]
But the Department could not guarantee that it would never impose
a penalty or sanction on individuals who had received inaccurate
advice from the Department and acted upon it. This was because
the Department's primary duty was to collect the right amount
of tax as required by statute. In some circumstances, this might
mean it could no longer be bound by the advice it had given, for
example, if the customer provided incorrect or incomplete information
when requesting advice from the Department, or if the relevant
law or its interpretation had changed. The Department would, however,
be bound by information or advice it gave which was incorrect
in law, provided it was clear and explicit, and the customer could
show that: they reasonably relied on the advice; where appropriate,
they made full disclosure of all the relevant facts; and the application
of the statute would result in their financial detriment.[15]
11 Q 23; C&AG's Report, paras 3.1, 3.3-3.4 and
3.10 Back
12
Qq 4 and 20; C&AG's Report, para 3.10 Back
13
Qq 25 and 29-31; C&AG's Report, para 3.10; Ev 13 Back
14
Qq 26-27 and 40; Ev 12 Back
15
Qq 35-40; Ev 12 Back
|
