Experts Question HMRC Over Possible Child Benefit Privacy

Published: 01 November 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

Legal experts have raised serious concerns that HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) may have breached privacy laws when it suspended child benefit payments for thousands of families based on flawed Home Office travel data. The suspensions, which were part of a broader anti-fraud crackdown, have triggered criticism from politicians, privacy campaigners, and affected families, prompting an inquiry by the UK’s data watchdog, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

The controversy centers on the use of incomplete Home Office travel records, which HMRC relied upon to identify possible benefit fraud. Families across the UK received letters notifying them that their child benefit payments had been suspended, often without clear justification. Some of the affected individuals had not left the UK, while others had completed routine travel, including holidays or work-related trips, highlighting apparent flaws in the data used.

Steve Darling, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for work and pensions, condemned the policy, describing it as “unacceptable.” He drew parallels with the previous carers allowance repayments scandal, warning that the latest issue indicates “things are seriously wrong within our welfare system, with people paying the price through no fault of their own.” Darling called on ministers to provide a full explanation, support affected families, and take steps to prevent similar errors in the future.

HMRC has responded to the criticism by confirming that payments have been reinstated to 1,979 families as of 31 October. The agency stated that it was “confident” the majority of the 23,500 suspensions had been implemented correctly, and advised anyone who believed they were wrongly affected to contact the helpline provided in the correspondence for a swift resolution. Nevertheless, the scale of the suspensions and the errors involved have raised questions about the accuracy and legality of HMRC’s approach.

The issue first came to light in Northern Ireland, where politicians discovered that payments were being stopped for taxpayers who had returned to the UK via Dublin airport. It soon emerged that the problem was not confined to Northern Ireland; families across England, Scotland, and Wales were affected, including individuals who had taken trips years ago. Some of the flagged travel involved one-way tickets or aborted journeys, such as a mother unable to board a flight because her child fell ill.

Among the newly reported cases was a teacher who had participated in a school trip booked through her employer but could not provide a plane ticket to prove her return to the UK. The range of affected individuals suggests systemic issues in the way HMRC relied on Home Office data, as the information did not accurately reflect travel patterns or compliance with benefit eligibility.

Eleonor Duhs, a barrister specialising in privacy law, emphasised the legal implications of the suspensions. “One of the main data protection principles is that personal data should be accurate. If you don’t know whether the data is accurate, and that seems to be proven by the experiences that have been set out in the stories, then that really shows that there is a breach if data protection law,” she said.

The ICO has confirmed that it is in contact with HMRC regarding the concerns raised. A spokesperson for the watchdog stated: “Any data-sharing between public bodies must be necessary, proportionate, and carried out in line with data protection law. This includes ensuring that data is accurate and fit for purpose, especially when it is being used to make decisions linked to benefit payments. We expect organisations to demonstrate how their use of personal data meets legal requirements, particularly where decisions may have significant impacts on individuals.”

HMRC has maintained that it acted within the law. A spokesperson insisted: “We’ve not breached any data protection laws regarding our child benefit compliance activity. We adhere to the UK GDPR and other data protection legislation when processing personal data.” The agency added that it “continuously” engages with the ICO and is aware of any agreements governing data use in this exercise.

Despite HMRC’s assurances, concerns about proportionality and fairness remain. The Home Office itself has acknowledged limitations in the data provided. In a statement to a member of the public who requested access to their records, the department noted: “Any travel history provided should be interpreted as an intention to travel and not as proof of travel. The carrier should be approached directly if the information is required for an official process.” This caveat underlines the potential for inaccuracies when the data is used for enforcement purposes.

In response to the controversy, HMRC suspended the practice of stopping child benefit until cross-checks with recipients were completed. The agency has also introduced measures to compare Home Office travel data with Pay As You Earn (PAYE) records, a step it described as striking “the right balance between protecting taxpayers’ money and ensuring payments are only suspended when appropriate.”

Legal experts warn that the human impact of the suspensions cannot be understated. Families have reported distress, financial uncertainty, and anxiety over the sudden loss of child benefit. Duhs emphasised the importance of a proportional approach: “There is a human rights test to balance here. Under the data protection laws, the use of personal data has to be necessary, there has to be a legitimate aim, and it has to be proportionate to that aim. We’ve got so many mistakes here it begs the question as to whether this process was done in a way that was proportionate to people’s human rights given the detriment to people’s lives and the distress caused.”

The government has claimed that the use of travel data was intended to tackle error and fraud, with an estimated potential saving of up to £350 million. HMRC maintains that agreements are in place with the Home Office to allow for the use of travel records to inform compliance activities. Nevertheless, critics argue that the risk of harm to innocent families outweighs potential savings, particularly when the data is known to be incomplete or inaccurate.

The case has sparked wider debates about the reliability of data-sharing between government departments and the safeguards necessary to protect citizens’ rights. Privacy advocates stress that the legal requirement for accurate and proportionate data use is central to upholding public trust, especially in matters affecting vulnerable families. While HMRC and the Home Office aim to prevent fraud, experts note that any enforcement measures must meet rigorous standards to avoid undue harm.

Parliamentary scrutiny is expected to intensify in the coming weeks as lawmakers seek answers about the processes that led to mass suspensions of child benefit. Pressure is mounting for transparency, redress for affected families, and reassurances that similar errors will not recur in future compliance exercises.

In conclusion, the HMRC child benefit suspension controversy highlights the challenges of balancing anti-fraud measures with legal obligations to protect personal data and respect human rights. As investigations by the ICO continue, the government faces the dual task of correcting mistakes and restoring confidence in a system designed to support families across the UK.