The UK’s HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is under the microscope. Stories have emerged showing that their war on child benefit fraud involved sending threatening letters to parents based on partial travel history data. For months, HMRC’s aggressive enforcement approach has caused widespread alarm. It focused on a “tolerable” risk of breaking up families while determining child benefit eligibility.
In recent weeks, HMRC dispatched letters to parents referencing overseas holidays for which the Home Office lacked a record of a return journey. This move caused tremendous outcry since many of these letters were as much as three years old. Many critics pointed to the fact that more than 63% of families who had their incoming child benefits suddenly stopped remain in the UK. This situation should cause deep concern about the quality and trustworthiness of the data underlying these critical policy and funding decisions.
From the start, the data used to justify this short-sighted crackdown was incomplete and misleading at best, resulting in a shocking reversal in the results. By the deadline of November 30th, almost 15,000 displaced families had been confirmed as eligible claimants. By comparison, just 1,019 cases, or 4.3% of the total, were flagged for false claims. This shows a huge overreach in HMRC’s measures, which opponents say should have been prevented with better data.
Data collected during a recent travel demand management pilot scheme found that the data was worse than expected, with 46% of trips identified the incorrect destination. One particularly moving case was a parent who had to go from Devon to Dublin for their mother’s funeral. The journey itself was opaque—the Home Office had no record of their return route. In another discrimination case, a woman’s child benefit was removed. This occurred after authorities incorrectly noted that she had taken a trip to Norway for a wedding that was later canceled.
This over-reliance on often-obtuse and incorrect travel histories has cast a shadow of mournful separation over countless innocent families. One other mom had her benefits cut off when she flew to France to retrieve her husband’s body. One mother had her benefits denied despite her having to interrupt her vacation when her child had an epileptic attack at the airport boarding gate. These cases are just a few examples of the human impact of HMRC’s approach to preventing fraud.
In response, HMRC vigorously defended its actions. For example, they explained how using international travel data can help identify when a customer is likely to cease being eligible for child benefit. An HMRC spokesperson reinforced the idea that the agency is always undertaking its own checks. In practice, they issue investigations only when warranted and provide customers with a minimum of one month to provide information before issuing final determinations of ineligibility.
“International travel data gives an indication that a customer may no longer be eligible for child benefit,” – HMRC spokesperson
Experts have criticized the process. Mariano delli Santi opined that HMRC’s Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) was badly performed. He stated, “obvious that the DPIA was conducted poorly … The purpose of a consultation within a DPIA is not to inform but to gather feedback and identify potential risks.”
The Home Office appears to have finally backtracked on its position on travel history data. They made it clear that this data was not to be interpreted as intent to travel, as proof of actual traveled.
“Any travel history provided should be interpreted as an intention to travel and not as proof of travel. The carrier should be approached directly if the information is required for an official process.” – Home Office
Many thousands more remain waiting, some for decades. All of this comes at a moment when nearly half of families are confused about their eligibility for child benefits. The total count of valid claimants will continue to increase as more reviews are submitted.