I can prove the overpayment, they have in fact admitted it and have said they will not pursue it. Even though at the time the liability order & property charge where applied at a time when the 2nd case had only just opened and was still being assessed.
I have received dividends - as I am self employed - but these have been included in my personal tax return by my accountant so they are aware of them.
The over payment was about £3000 , but again, that is based on Interim Assessments so it is probably higher.
They now say I owe £9491 pounds and are basing that on a sum of £22000 that they allege I owe from 1993 - September 2004. But I was out of the country for 3.5 of those years and so out of there remit. I have provided them with HMRC tax returns to prove this.
Also, the liability order they applied for and got was incorrect in that it sated the period 2000 - 2009 but actually referenced my 2nd child, who wasn't born until mid 2002. That to me is another maladministration.
I know that any alleged debt from before July 2000 cannot be pursued under the "six year rule" so should that also be discarded from any equation they are using to calculate alleged debt?
Also, none of what they allege is owed has been established with hard facts/evidence, it is all assumptions based on long since terminated employment.
I let it out to rent and that was my only income in the uk
I asked for reviews of the assessments but they refused my requests saying I did not have any grounds. They cited delays in returning information had meant that the appeals could not be considered. I think they only gave a short window days for appeals to be submitted, but the time allowed included the time it took for the decision to be posted out to me. This would be a letter electronically despatched to a remote print site where it would be queued for printing which impinged on this appeal time. Surely there should be no time limit and evidence in law can be presented retrospectively. If I was imprisoned for a crime I did not commit I could appeal this if I had retrospective evidence to back this up, so why not with this court of law, which I am advised the CSA is, albeit by them.
I have to logoff now but will pick up your response tomorrow. Thanks for your efforts so far.