How much has the BACS hash cost?
Dear HM Revenue and Customs,
Please state the total costs of obtaining and checking the BACS/VOCA hash for PAYE RTI payments, including actual costs of working with BACS/VOCA and all estimates of costs for employers, payroll s/w companies, payroll bureaus, and third parties inconvenienced by changes to BACS systems even if they do not do payroll via BACS. Provide copies of all actual costs and all estimates and forecasts relating to requiring a BACS hash to be submitted with RTI data and validated by HMRC.
Yours faithfully,
Adrian Kennard
Thank you for your communication of 25 May 2013 which has been passed to
HMRC's Freedom of Information Team.
We have allocated the above reference which you should quote if you need
to contact us.
The Team will arrange for a reply to be sent to you which will either
comply with HMRC's obligations under Freedom of Information Act or, if
we think it's an enquiry that we don't need to address under the terms
of the Act, let you know why. If it is the latter we will, if possible,
pass it on to a more appropriate part of the Department for answer.
HMRC
Freedom of Information Team
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may be subject to legal professional privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient or his/her representative you are not authorised to, and must not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately.
HM Revenue & Customs computer systems will be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for lawful purposes.
The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs are not liable for any personal views of the sender.
This e-mail may have been intercepted and its information altered.
FOI Ref 1841/13
Dear Reverend Kennard
Our response to your information request is attached.
Yours sincerely
Mary Leeds
<<1841 Kennard.pdf>>
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may
be subject to legal professional privilege. Unless you are the intended
recipient or his/her representative you are not authorised to, and must
not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately.
HM Revenue & Customs computer systems will be monitored and communications
carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system
and for lawful purposes.
The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs are not liable for any
personal views of the sender.
This e-mail may have been intercepted and its information altered.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
Dear HM Revenue and Customs,
I am concerned at two aspects of your reply.
1. That you think the hash helps verify that the payment reported matches what was paid to the individual. It does not as a BACS payment and hash can be generated and submitted with RTI which is independent of staff payments. The system does not do what you say.
2. That you failed to consider the impact of this change and think that only those paying people via BACS were affected, Lloyds closed their bureau as a result of that affecting hundreds of people using BACS for direct debit and causing lots of work.
Please confirm.
1. That you agree the has does not prove a payment to the individual concerned, and so is totally pointless.
2. That you failed to concern the impact of this change fully.
I also ask for an internal review of your refuse to explain how public money has been spent.
Yours faithfully,
Rev Adrian Kennard
FOI Ref 1841/13
Dear Reverend Kennard
Thank you for your email below. I will arrange for an internal review to be carried out and we will aim to provide a response by 23 July 2013.
Yours sincerely
Mary Leeds
FOI Ref 1841/13
Dear Reverend Kennard
I am writing to advise there will be a delay in responding to your request
for an internal review, which we had hoped to issue by 23 July 2013.
We now expect to complete the review by 1 August 2013. I am sorry for an
inconvenience this may cause you.
Yours sincerely
Mary Leeds
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may
be subject to legal professional privilege. Unless you are the intended
recipient or his/her representative you are not authorised to, and must
not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately.
HM Revenue & Customs computer systems will be monitored and communications
carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system
and for lawful purposes.
The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs are not liable for any
personal views of the sender.
This e-mail may have been intercepted and its information altered.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
FOI Ref 1841/13
Please find attached our response to your request for an internal review.
<<1841 Kennard.pdf>>
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may
be subject to legal professional privilege. Unless you are the intended
recipient or his/her representative you are not authorised to, and must
not, read, copy, distribute, use or retain this message or any part of it.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately.
HM Revenue & Customs computer systems will be monitored and communications
carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system
and for lawful purposes.
The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs are not liable for any
personal views of the sender.
This e-mail may have been intercepted and its information altered.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Vincent Aleck left an annotation ()
Hmm. Perhaps you could submit a separate request asking them to provide details of the rationale behind choosing this mechanism (as you've pointed out elsewhere, it provides only a superficially robust check that a payment has been made), what alternatives were considered and disregarded, and the reasons why.
For example, why not simple make a hash of the date and "sequence number" (to identify repeat transactions, if such exists), transaction amount, source and destination sort codes and account numbers, and an indicator of the "direction"?