A significant administrative failure at HM Revenue and Customs has left a taxpayer from Chorley, Lancashire, facing wrongful monthly charges of approximately £450, after the tax authority erroneously associated a complete stranger's employment details with their national insurance number.
Serious Data Mix-Up Exposes Payroll Information
In a concerning breach of data security and procedural accuracy, HMRC randomly linked another individual's job to the complainant's NI number during November. This alarming error allowed the affected taxpayer to view highly sensitive information about the unrelated person, including their specific workplace, employment start date, precise payroll number, and exact earnings.
Financial Consequences and Administrative Delays
The consequences of this administrative blunder have been substantial and financially damaging. HMRC began taxing the Lancashire resident as though they held two simultaneous positions, effectively doubling their presumed income. Furthermore, the authority added a retrospective tax adjustment for what it incorrectly believed was unpaid tax from the previous financial year.
Despite enduring a ninety-minute telephone wait to speak with an HMRC adviser, the taxpayer received minimal reassurance, being informed simply that the matter "hadn't been addressed yet." This response highlights concerning delays within the tax authority's complaint resolution processes.
Parallel Cases and Compensation
This situation bears unsettling similarities to previous HMRC errors, including a documented case where another taxpayer was mistakenly declared deceased after being assigned the NI number of a stranger who had passed away. What proves particularly troubling in these instances is not merely the initial administrative mistakes, but what appears to be a pattern of subsequent indifference and sluggish correction.
Following intervention, HMRC acknowledged that the error occurred during a routine tax code review, when its automated system incorrectly matched the complainant's employment data with that of another woman who shared certain personal details. Crucially, both individuals' actual NI numbers remained separate and unaffected throughout.
Resolution and Data Breach Concerns
The tax authority has now reportedly untangled the two records and committed to refunding all overpaid tax through the complainant's next payslip. Additionally, HMRC has offered £75 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
However, serious questions remain regarding data protection. When questioned about whether this incident constituted a reportable data breach to the Information Commissioner's Office, given that one taxpayer could access another's employment details, HMRC contended that no breach occurred. The authority maintained that because the other woman's name, residential address, and date of birth were not disclosed, formal reporting was unnecessary.
This stance raises important discussions about what constitutes sensitive personal data and the thresholds for mandatory breach reporting under UK data protection regulations.
