Andy Hardy (AH) Acorah
Tim Hervey (TH) SAGE
Russell Cadwell (RC) CCH
Anthony Boggiano (AB) Keytime
Leslie McQuigg (LM) CCH
Steve Cox (SC) PTP
Katherine Halliday (KH) Deloitte
John Wall (JW) PTP
Stuart Moffatt (SM) Deloitte
Lucien Caldwell (LC) Digita
Mark Purdue (MP) Digita
Graham Clohessy (GC) Ernst & Young
Jonathan Oliver (JO) IRIS
Manjit Sagoo (MS) IRIS
John Knowles (JK) IRIS
Jane Brothwood (JB) HMRC
Rosemary Donnelly (RD) HMRC
Tim Downes (TD) Chair HMRC
Julian Hatt (JH) HMRC
Tim Minshull (TM) HMRC
Tony Musk (TMu) Minutes HMRC
Danka Wigley (DW) HMRC
TD thanked everyone for attending and gave an overview of the aims of the meeting.
All the Notes and Forms for 2007-08 are now available on the HMRC website.
TM acknowledged that there are ongoing problems with obtaining replies to email queries. To help remedy this SDS Team (SDST) will be holding meetings with the Technical Specialists to stress the importance of timely replies.
TM also asked that to help with prioritisation that Developers where possible give SDST some idea of the numbers of customers they believe this will affect as SDST were receiving up to two dozen queries a day.
LM advised that this was difficult for developers to achieve and that HMRC should really know what was important and what wasn’t. TD said he appreciated this but asked that developers do their best.
JB advised that HMRC needs to do better in this area and that we should be able to give an idea of how long a response may take. However, we need to be realistic as some of the queries are very complex and may need to be referred to our legal department for advice.
There had been no movement on this since the last meeting. TM advised that SDST would try and have this up and running in the form of an FAQ’s page.
There were various issues surrounding this such as how frequently would they be updated etc. The aim would be to have this working in April 2009 with a progress update at the end of March 2009.
AP – TM
TH asked what had happened to the idea of Shared Workspace – TD advised that this currently wasn’t in scope due to security issues.
These problems usually happen after a TPVS or live release. TM acknowledged that the test services had not been particularly robust recently but we expect that this should improve as several problems have recently been rectified by our IT Suppliers.
TM advised that details of the schedules covered by the HMRC product are listed on the SA Vendor page at 2008/09 Self Assessment Online - software and online forms. If anyone wants to check the full functionality they can log onto the HMRC portal and view the information there.
TM apologised for the fact changes documents are not available for the RIM artefacts. We are not provided with these but we are in discussions with our suppliers for these to be produced.
We are also trying to ensure that changes for other documents, such as the Test Case Generator are provided.
AP - TM
TM advised that TMu and Lisa Vogel had visited the Newcastle and Bathgate Contact Centres and had distributed details of the error messages then.
TM acknowledged that there were still problems with the helpdesk referring customers back to the software suppliers in error but we were trying to educate. TMu advised that if developers can provide case numbers provided to their customers we can refer these issues back to OSH.
TM advised that this was out of HMRC’s control and would probably be something that could be better influenced between the agents and their customers.
TM advised that the format had now been revised. A discussion took place and the feeling was that these are now OK.
This led onto a discussion about developer queries in general. DW asked that developers kept one query to each email and made it clear in the Subject which supplementary page and box the question linked to.
Would a template be a good idea? What about case references? It would also be useful if some sort of prioritisation could be given – see also item 2.2 above.
JB advised that is something that would be really useful and asked if any of the Developers would like to work with SDST to help produce some sort of template. JO volunteered to help out.
AP - TMu & JO
TM advised that the ‘live’ peak had gone very well this year with over 47 per cent of all SA Returns (including paper) being from the third party channel. He produced various stats which are attached to the minutes.
JH thanked the developers for all their assistance in what was a very challenging year and congratulated them on the very high first time success rates that they achieved. The key message is ‘We couldn’t have done it without you’. The online filing results have actually exceeded the targets for next years figures which is an excellent result.
TM advised that HMRC have a procedure in place to escalate ‘Live’ problems (for generic incidents affecting multiple users) so the developers do not have to ask their customers to contact the Online services Helpdesk (OSH). This is currently in ‘pilot’ and will run for an initial period until the end of March 2009. This period will be extended if no incidents allow this procedure to be fully tested.
This Fast-Track approach can be used where 20 or more users are affected. Users are defined as 20 taxpayers so if one agent has large client base that is being affected then the procedure can be implemented.
This was seen by developers as a welcome initiative and gave them assurance that any potential live issues they identify can be escalated quickly.
The service was robust over the period and as mentioned in item 3.1 above.
JB asked if anyone had any suggestions as to how we could make next years service run smoother.
There was a suggestion that the Specials and Exclusions were presented in a more user friendly format for agents as in 2007-08 the documents contained technical references and as a result were verbose and difficult to understand.
JH advised that this was considered but the document is primarily aimed at Software developers. Agents were consulted and after discussions it was decided to leave one set of documents. However, in October, because HMRC was aware of these issues, guidance specifically targeted at agents was published on the website at Self Assessment online filing update for agents and the top seven or eight issues were presented in a more user friendly format.
The site was also updated with the reasonable excuse form for appeals against penalties where online filing was not possible due to HMRC system deficiencies. The use of this form also allowed some penalty notices to be inhibited where HMRC were advised early enough.
AH asked if this could be expanded to individuals as it was currently specifically for agents. JH advised that the reasonable excuse form could be used by individuals.
MP asked about workarounds on exclusions. Would the same apply as last year ie if there any are released after April which are technically specials would reasonable excuse be allowed? Also, where there were issues which arose and the software can’t be updated can HMRC give assurances that reasonable excuse can be used.
RD advised that it is too early in the year to see if the reasonable excuse form will be carried forward to 2008-09.
AH asked that this was sooner rather than later as not all users will update their software. RD advised that HMRC will aim for the end of July, middle of August for a decision to be communicated.
LM asked what the 2008-09 policy on exclusions was? JH advised that where the circumstance was covered by an exclusion then the customer could file on paper up to 31 January 2010.
There were various points raised.
3.4.1 - Don’t make changes to several areas in a service at once. In 2007-08 Developers had to cope with new return, withdrawal of substitutes and what was in effect a brand new service.
JB agreed and that with hindsight HMRC wouldn’t have made all the changes in the same year.
3.4.2 - Will the Partnership Returns be redesigned
DW advised that there will be no changes until at least 2010-11 - if there are to be any at all. Even then the changes would probably be reformatting and branding to bring this more into line with the new MTR and there were no plans to change the box numbers on the forms.
The ‘driver’ for the changes to the Individual return was the fact that normal taxpayers found it difficult to complete. Because the Partnership and Trust returns are usually submitted by agents who have a good knowledge of what is required the same does not apply to these returns.
3.4.3 - Make sure that Guidance notes match the validation rules
RD advised that on occasion there had been problems and we will endeavour to make sure these match. However, SA is so complex it is likely that there will always be some anomalies.
5.1.1 – Will there be any significant changes to the PDF’s issued in January 2009?
DW advised that there will be no significant changes to the PDF’s already published. However, the question of what was deemed as identical is still outstanding.
The general feeling was that there was still a need for further clarification on this subject. For example is the printed by ‘Printed in the U.K. by Adare Group xxxxxx 12/08’ required on the identical forms?
DW advised that this was not required and, because of the issues surrounding this, HMRC are currently awaiting a ruling from the Solicitors Office on this in order to provide greater clarity on what is expected.
Additionally, there is to be a meeting for developers in May/June to discuss the Developers needs on identical forms.
Further details will follow nearer the time.
AP - TM/DW
5.1.2 – Clean PDF forms
Developers asked for clean forms as soon as possible to enable them to add them to their products. For example, could they have the clean copies that are sent to the printers?
DW advised that these could be made available for 2008-09 as the drafts
had gone to print.
SDS team will issue these to Developers
AP - TM
RD advised that we are aiming to finalise the 2008-09 specials and exclusions by the end of next week. If there are to be any delays, we will keep developers informed.
There was a request that during the year we could regularly update developers with details of which specials and exclusions have been fixed instead of advising developers late in the day as they need to un-code any workarounds that are in place. We would try and make these available as soon as possible in future, but as testing takes place near the end of development, there would always be a caveat that they may not get deployed if issues arise.
At this point TD advised that we had found some business critical changes that would result in a version 3.1 of the RIM artefacts. The issues had been highlighted to HMRC on Thursday and the decision to make changes was taken earlier this morning.
SDST would issue further details on Monday. RD apologised for the late release of these artefacts but as they affected the Self-employment and Partnership pages HMRC could not allow these omissions to go into the ‘Live’ release.
It was stressed that there were no schema changes and that no other issues would be fixed in this release.
There were several points;
5.4.1 - Trust Schema
Why were there so many changes to the Trust Schema this year? There seemed to be minimal changes to the form but the schema had changed extensively?
Also, where such a large number of changes are to be made would HMRC let developers know in advance so they can plan their workload accordingly.
TMu advised that the reason for the changes was the result of the Trust schema being brought fully into the RIM process and the full extent of the changes required was not appreciated by HMRC. We would try and learn from this, but hopefully this year had been the ‘big hit’ and there would be minimal changes for next year.
RD acknowledged that there was work needed on the Partnership and Trust returns and was focusing her attention on these services.
5.4.2 - Test cases
The quality of the test cases, particularly the Partnership and Trust cases was not very good this year. RD acknowledged that this was the case and these would be looked at for future years.
Also, could the test cases be made available sooner? Again, we would endeavour to send these out as soon as possible.
5.4.3 - Communication
HMRC need to make sure that they deliver on time. However, where slippages occur we should let Developers know as soon as possible.
TD advised that SDS Team were available for visits to developers. If anyone wants a visit please contact us and we will arrange.
TH advised that there were outstanding action points from the HMRC visit with SAGE last November and wanted an update.
TM advised he was not aware of these, but would chase them up and apologised for the delay.
AP – TM
Also, would it be possible for developers to have direct contact with specialists involved? TM advised that as SDS Team were the single point of contact and in view of the number of specialists involved this was not really practical. Also, SDST were able to collate responses and reply to similar queries developers may ask.
Covered in item 5.4.1 above
TM advised that the Gateway ID’s had now changed to a credit card format with spaces. These should be stripped out before submission to prevent failures at the Gateway.
TM asked if anyone in the meeting had experienced problems with this as the person who had raised it was not at the meeting. No-one else had experienced problems with this.
TM advised that this may be helped by the shift to all numeric Gateway ID’s.
This had always taken up to a week and there were no problems with letters being delayed.
JO asked if there were any plans for this postal step to be removed as this seemed unusual when we were trying to file electronically.
JH advised that there were currently no plans to change this procedure.
JK advised that when the Gateway lock out a user because several unsuccessful login attempts have been made then there is no message to say the user is locked out.
TM will investigate this and see if any changes can be made to remedy this.
AP - TM
JH advised that there have been some problems, but these are few and far between. If anyone comes across this issue they should report it to OSH.
There was an issue with taxpayers using their Individual UTR instead of their Partnership UTR, but this was not generally something we could really control. Hopefully, as online usage increases, users will become more familiar with the correct process.
A discussion took place and we will have a look at revamping the vendor page to customers with an overview of whether or not a supplier supports Individual and/or Agent returns.
AP – TM
Are the published forms now acceptable to use as identical? DW advised that they are. Further discussions will take place at the meeting in May/June – see item 5.1 above
This is still under enquiry and TM is currently trying to find out if this will be changed or not.
AP - TM
TH asked that the lifecycle of the R40 and the R40CG be brought into line with SA forms. TM advised he would see if this would be possible.
AP – TM
Post meeting note – The sign off date for the R40 is July 2009 to align with the National Insurance Recording System (NIRS).
A question was asked whether validation could be put in to HMRC systems so that an amended return could not be accepted before the original was received. JH advised that this was not possible as in theory the original could be submitted by a different method than the amendment e.g. paper.
RD had been given an action point to make the error message wording clearer and asked if any of the Developers wanted to have some input. There were no volunteers so RD will look at these and report back at the next meeting.
AP - RD
The current character set in the system is very restrictive therefore would it be possible for this to be expanded to allow extra/foreign Characters.
TM will investigate this further.
AP – TM
There were some outstanding queries that were not currently published. For example, some of the Partnership test cases had been withdrawn because of an issue with the validation on 2.6A and 2.6B.
TMu advised that was included in exclusion 3 of the Partnership specials and exclusions v2.0 which was issued yesterday. LM advised that the wording on this was too restrictive and needed amending.
TM asked LM to send in his revised wording and we would look to update the document.
Post meeting note – LM has now provided the revised wording. This has been approved and the exclusion updated in v3.0.
JO asked if the problems with rounding and tolerances they had experienced had been fixed for 2008-09. RD advised that a lot of work had been done on these for 2008-09 so any issues that were present should have been fixed.
Information had recently been published on the HMRC website regarding the withdrawal of dummy UTR’s.
TM will look into this issue as SDST were unaware of this guidance.
AP - TM
TM asked if these should be quarterly. The general feeling that they should be held if there was sufficient content. The next meeting will be scheduled for May/June to coincide with the PDF meeting – see item 5.1 above. Exact dates to follow
The meeting closed at 2:30 pm.
Minutes by Tony Musk – SDS Team.
| Item | Action | Owner |
|---|---|---|
2.3 |
FAQ’s page |
Tim Minshull |
2.6 |
Changes documents |
Tim Minshull |
2.9 |
Template for email queries |
Jonathon Oliver/Tony Musk |
5.1.1 |
Meeting to discuss Identical Returns |
Tim Minshull/Danka Wigley |
5.1.2 |
Clean 2008/09 PDF Forms |
Tim Minshull |
6 |
Action points from SAGE liaison visit |
Tim Minshull |
7.4 |
User error messages on Gateway |
Tim Minshull |
7.7 |
Updating the Vendor page with Individual/Agent products |
Tim Minshull |
| 8.2 |
R40 (CG) |
Tim Minshull |
8.4 |
Error messages |
Rosemary Donnelly |
8.5 |
Acceptable characters |
Tim Minshull |
8.8 |
Withdrawal of dummy Partnership UTR’s |
Tim Minshull |
