Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Please provide a count of the emails to and from the individual occupying post OD520 (Counter Avoidance Policy) containing the terms
'Loan Charge' or 'LC'

Please restrict the supply of this information to the year 2019 (01 January 2019 to 31/12/2019 inclusive). Please provide a breakdown of count of emails to and from this individual for each month of this period.

This will require a search of one individual mailbox (belonging to the individual occupying post OD520 (Counter Avoidance Policy).

I do not need to know the name of the individual.

Yours faithfully,

Mike Howard

Dear FOI Team,

Thank you for your response.
1) I would ask that you check the results as the pattern of sending and receiving is very peculiar. The supplied breakdown shows that this individual appears to have been sending literally hundreds of emails on the target subjects each month from January through to August, eight months without receiving a response.
After August there appears to be a far more normal profile of email activity
As an interim :-
2) Please provide the 13 emails received in August 2019 with the search term "Loan Charge"
3) Please provide the 6 emails received in August 2019 with the search term "LC"

Yours sincerely,

Mike Howard

Dear FOI Team,

Thank you for the update.
Responses to FOI requests should be within 20 working days. You are in breach of the FOIA

Yours sincerely,

Mike Howard

Dear FOI Central Team,

Your apology is accepted, but I feel that I should remind that you that this is the second extension to responding to this request, which should have been delivered by the 8/11/2021
You requested an extension on the 8/12/2021 and now are asking for a further one

This is a simple request for 19 emails that are now more than two years old.

Suggesting that public interest is served by not releasing old emails is stretching credibility, and a strong indication that HMRC have something to hide. There is massive public interest in the Loan Charge and how HMRC have handled it.
Of course I will ask for an internal review and that will be followed by raising a complaint with the ICO.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Howard

Dear FOI Central Team,

It is now the 12/1/2022.
You had stated in your earlier response that you were aiming to deliver the material requested by the 11/1/2022 , if not earlier.
You have not provided the information requested.
You are invoking section 10(3) of the FOIA, but you have not stated why you required additional time, other than to state you are considering public interest.

Please provide the information requested as you are breaching FOIA regulations and ICO guidelines in not doing so.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Howard

Dear FOI Central Team,

I wrote asking for a number of emails on the 10/11/21
You wrote to me on the 8/12/21 stating that your response would be delayed until 11/1/22
I wrote accepting your apology on the 22/12/21
I wrote again asking you to provide the information requested on 12/1/22

You are now in breach of the FOIA.
Please provide the information I have requested by return.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Howard

Dear FOI Team,

Thank you for your delayed response to my Freedom of Information

I note that I had requested a total of 19 emails, but you have only provided 8.
Even where some of the emails might contain both terms then there should be a minimum of 13 emails to provide is response to this request
This indicates that some of the emails you stated in response to FOI 2021 25558 have not been provided.

I note also that you have redacted significant portions of the response to press articles in email 3 are redacted using FOIA exemption 44. These are responses to press articles and surely cannot be considered be references to an individual as the comments are coming from an individual in HMRC's Communications department tasked with providing information about Loan Charge Communications periodically.

You have also invoked 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the FOIA to withhold sections of email 5. This information is obviously a view of someone withing CS&TD Individuals Policy, Income Tax but it is material to this research and understanding why/how HMRC have continued to punish individuals caught in the Loan Charge trap.

Please
1) Provide the missing emails
2) Un-redact the sections that I challenge would identify an individual in email 3
3) Un-redact the sections of email 5
4) Provide a copy of the 'qualified person's' assesment
5) Meta data associated with this request (FOI2021 27262)

Yours sincerely,

Mike Howard

Dear FOI Team,

You initially allocate this request as FOI2022/08509
but now appear to have allocated a reference number IR2022/08494 indicating that my last request was for an internal review.

I did NOT request an Internal Review as this stage. Please can you correct your mistake

Yours sincerely,

Mike Howard

Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Apologies if it was headed incorrectly , I don't understand how that has occurred. Possibly a fault on the WDTK website.
Just to be clear then, I do not want an internal review at this stage.

Please can you respond to the questions I've asked

Thanks

Yours faithfully,

Mike Howard

Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Just for 100% clarity I would like answers to all 5 questions.
I have provided the full text again to ensure that we don't end up with crossed wires.

I note that I had requested a total of 19 emails, but you have only provided 8.
Even where some of the emails might contain both terms then there should be a minimum of 13 emails to provide is response to this request
This indicates that some of the emails you stated in response to FOI 2021 25558 have not been provided.

I note also that you have redacted significant portions of the response to press articles in email 3 are redacted using FOIA exemption 44. These are responses to press articles and surely cannot be considered be references to an individual as the comments are coming from an individual in HMRC's Communications department tasked with providing information about Loan Charge Communications periodically.

You have also invoked 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the FOIA to withhold sections of email 5. This information is obviously a view of someone withing CS&TD Individuals Policy, Income Tax but it is material to this research and understanding why/how HMRC have continued to punish individuals caught in the Loan Charge trap.

Please
1) Provide the missing emails
2) Un-redact the sections that I challenge would identify an individual in email 3
3) Un-redact the sections of email 5
4) Provide a copy of the 'qualified person's' assesment
5) Meta data associated with this request (FOI2021 27262)

Yours faithfully,

Mike Howard

Dear Team, FOI,

This response has now been delayed a number of times and strongly indicates that HMRC are being less than transparent.
MH 26/1/2021 Initial request for a count of emails
HMRC 10/11/2022 Response showing email counts
MH 10/11/2021 Request pointing out the odd pattern, but requesting 19 emails
HMRC 8/12/2021 Stating a delay to providing them to 22/12/2021
HMRC 22/12/2021 Asking for a further time extension to11/1/2022
MH 12/1/2022 Reminding HMRC that they had committed to 11/1/2022 and failed
MH 24/2/2022 A further reminder to HMRC to supply the information
HMRC 25/2/2022 Some information is provided, but some emails missing without explanation and others readacted
MH 25/2/2022 Request for the missing emails and other associated information
HMRC 28/2/2022 Turn the request into an internal review
MH 28/2/2022 HMRC informed that an internal review had not been requested
MH 28/2/2022 request reiterated to ensure clarity
HMRC 30/3/2022 A further request for a time extension

This does not seem reasonable. HMRC have now delayed sending this data three times and requested extensions. This data has now not been supplied in its entirety since 10/11/2021 a total of 98 working days.

I am particularly concerned that HMRC chose to simply not provide 11 of the emails until challenged and are now looking to provide exemptions as to why they should not provide them.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Howard

Dear HM Revenue and Customs,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of HM Revenue and Customs's handling of my FOI request 'Emails containing the term Loan Charge'.

It is interesting to note that HMRC felt it necessary to share this request for information with HMT. The meta data seems to reveal that the departments were discussing the best approach to withholding. Would section 35 be best or section 36? It is now clear why HMRC took 5 months to respond to the original request.

There was a useful section where the fact that section 35 is mutually exclusive to section 36 was discussed, thank you.

In the end if I understand your response it appears that it was decided to use section 36 rather than section 35 as the Loan Charge whilst active is no longer a policy being formulated. It was also more convenient to help withholding any information about the Loan Charge review.

The decision to withhold seems to have been largely driven by the thoughts that revealing the information would cause negative commentary from social media.

I also note that on page 193 of the response that you continue to use section 35 exemption. I do not believe section 35 applies as it is mutually exclusive with section 36.

Please reconsider your use of section 36 and in at least one case I've found section 35 and release the information I've asked for in full for both the original request (FOI2021/27262) and the subsequent metadata request. (FOI2022/08509) . I would prefer not to have to escalate this to the Information Commissioner.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/e...

Yours faithfully,

Mike Howard