"30.06.08. Telephone call from trader. He hasn't received the 02/08 and 05/08 duplicates. I have sent these to a different address. I have advised him to try and do his 05/08 return online in order to avoid a surcharge"
[6]The trader then gathered from a friend that if he drove over to a particular VAT office, he would be able to obtain a Return form there. This he did on 30 June. He then sent in the Return and a cheque, and the cheque was only recorded as having been received on 9 July.[7]The fundamental reason why we allowed this appeal, was that we considered that when he spoke on 30 June to his familiar contact in the Debt Management section of HMRC, the relevant official did not give him the correct and constructive information that she should have given to him. HMRC make much of the fact that, with traders who have difficulties in paying their VAT, they will be as cooperative as possible. In this case, the relevant information that should have been given to the trader was that it would have been very difficult to file on line, partially because the trader did not have, or seemingly know how to operate, a computer, and also because we understand that various required codes to facilitate on-line filing would be unlikely to have been obtained in time to file on line. In any event, the relevant advice for him to be given was that if he paid electronically (either by BACS transfer initiated before, say, Wednesday 2 July (to arrive by Monday 7 July), or by CHAPS transfer initiated before mid-day or 2.00 p.m. on Monday 7 July, the payment would have been duly received in time, and the delay in the filing of the Return would have occasioned no penalty.[8]As it was, the Appellant was left in the position of driving over, somewhat pointlessly, to obtain a VAT form from a nearby VAT office, and he remained under the impression that he could not pay without filing the Return, because understandably the payment would go adrift unless attached to the Return.[9]We accept that HMRC maintain the proposition that callers to the VAT Helplines must ask the right questions to obtain the correct answers. We also accept that people staffing the Helplines are generally furnished with text answers to common questions, and that it is too much to expect the people staffing the Helplines to give constructive and intelligent and helpful advice. We consider, however, that the Appellant was let down in this case in the phone enquiries that he made with his contact in the Debt Management section, and we consider that it was HMRC that fell short in maintaining their standard of trying to assist those having trouble with their filings. We have not based our decision on the fact that the Appellant had also been ill, that he had separated from his wife a year ago, and that he had been juggling with different addresses, and we certainly blame neither HMRC nor the Appellant for the fact that his endeavours to see that all his post was still received by him in a difficult situation seemingly failed. All of those factors do somewhat increase our sympathy for the Appellant. We base our decision, however, simply on the fact that had he been given the right advice and instruction by someone who must have been versed in all the intricacies as to how he could avoid a default and a surcharge, he would indeed have paid on time electronically.[10]We might finally observe, to minimise any embarrassment that there might be between the Appellant and the lady to whom he spoke in the Debt Management section of HMRC (with whom he may regrettably have to have continuing contact) that the basis of our decision was not one that the Appellant himself had raised at all, but one that it struck us that, in fairness, we should take on his behalf.[11]We accordingly allow the appeal. HOWARD M NOWLAN TRIBUNAL JUDGE RELEASE DATE: 18 May 2009