Why is my HMRC stamp duty refund delayed after they asked for bank authority evidence?

Introduction

Many people become concerned when HMRC has already reviewed a repayment claim, asks for one extra document, and then still does not release the money. A common example is where HMRC wants proof that the person receiving the repayment is authorised to use a joint bank account, or where HMRC says an authority form is not acceptable.

This can feel like the claim has effectively been approved and that payment should follow straight away. In practice, however, HMRC often pauses repayment cases while it checks authority, repayment destination and internal processing requirements. That can lead to delays even where the underlying claim appears to be valid.

The Question

A taxpayer had submitted a stamp duty repayment claim. HMRC carried out an initial review and then asked for evidence showing authority over the bank account to which the repayment would be made. That evidence was sent promptly.

After that, no repayment arrived. The taxpayer wanted to know whether there was a real problem with the claim or whether HMRC was simply taking a long time to match the evidence to the file and release payment. Later, HMRC appears to have raised a further procedural objection, saying that the authority submitted was not in the correct form, even though similar authority documents had apparently been accepted in other cases.

Nick’s Explanation

Nick’s explanation was that the delay did not necessarily mean the substantive claim had failed. His view was that HMRC had already looked at the merits of the case and that the immediate issue was procedural.

In anonymised form, his key points were:

• HMRC had indicated there was a backlog, so processing times were inconsistent.
• In similar cases, repayment timing had varied significantly, with some payments made quickly and others taking several weeks.
• HMRC was, in his view, taking a particularly technical approach to repayment claims and sometimes rejecting or delaying matters on narrow procedural grounds rather than addressing the substance.
• Where HMRC said the authority was not correct but did not explain why, the practical response was to submit a fuller replacement authority designed to remove any procedural objection.
• Because HMRC had already reviewed the case, he expected that once the authority point was accepted, payment should follow relatively quickly.

A fair summary of Nick’s reasoning is: the problem was likely not the validity of the repayment claim itself, but HMRC’s handling of authority and repayment formalities.

The Law

Stamp Duty Land Tax is governed principally by the Finance Act 2003. Where too much SDLT has been paid, a taxpayer may in the right circumstances amend a return or make a repayment claim, depending on the nature of the issue and the procedural route available.

Once HMRC is satisfied that a repayment is due, it must still be satisfied about who is entitled to receive the money and where the money should be sent. That is not simply an administrative preference. HMRC must avoid making repayments to the wrong person or into an account that has not been properly authorised.

Where an agent is involved, HMRC may also require valid authority to deal with the agent and may insist on evidence that the repayment instructions are properly authorised by the taxpayer. If the repayment is to a joint account, HMRC may ask for confirmation that the taxpayer has authority in relation to that account.

In practice, repayment delays often arise from procedure rather than legal entitlement. The legal right to repayment and HMRC’s administrative willingness to release funds are related but separate issues.

Analysis

The position can be analysed in stages.

1. First, ask whether HMRC has challenged the substance of the claim.

   If HMRC has not said the claim fails on the law or facts, that is important. It suggests the delay may not be about entitlement, but about process.

2. Second, identify exactly what HMRC requested.

   Here, HMRC asked for evidence relating to authority over the bank account receiving the repayment. That usually means HMRC wanted comfort that the repayment destination was properly authorised.

3. Third, consider whether the requested evidence was supplied promptly.

   If it was supplied quickly, a long delay afterwards may simply reflect internal backlog, queueing, or manual review. Unfortunately, that does happen.

4. Fourth, distinguish between a backlog and a technical rejection.

   If HMRC later says the authority was “not correct” but gives no real explanation, that often means the case has moved from ordinary delay into procedural objection. That does not automatically mean the claim lacks merit. It may mean HMRC is unwilling to proceed without a more formal authority document.

5. Fifth, consider the best practical response.

   Arguing immediately about whether HMRC should have accepted the earlier authority may be justified, but it may not be the fastest way to obtain payment. In many cases, the sensible step is to send a more comprehensive authority in the form HMRC is least likely to challenge.

6. Sixth, assess likely timescale.

   If HMRC has already reviewed the merits and the only remaining issue is authority, there is a reasonable basis for expecting payment once that point is cleared. Even so, exact timing is uncertain because repayment processing is not always consistent.

The practical lesson is that a delayed repayment after an initial review does not necessarily mean the claim is in trouble. It often means HMRC has not yet completed the administrative steps needed to release funds.

Outcome

The practical conclusion is that a delay after HMRC asks for bank authority evidence is often procedural rather than substantive. If HMRC has already reviewed the claim and has not rejected it on the merits, the most likely explanation is that the case is waiting for authority checks, internal handling or further document approval.

If HMRC objects to the form of authority, the quickest route is usually to submit a stronger replacement authority rather than wait for HMRC to clarify an unclear objection. Once HMRC accepts that authority point, payment may follow without any further dispute on the underlying claim.

Practical Steps

1. Check whether HMRC has actually rejected the claim, or has only raised a procedural point about authority or repayment details.

2. Read HMRC’s wording carefully. If it says the authority is incorrect but does not explain why, treat that as a signal to provide a fuller authority document.

3. If the repayment is to a joint bank account, make sure the supporting evidence clearly shows the taxpayer’s connection to and authority over that account.

4. If an agent is acting, ensure HMRC has a clear and current authority covering correspondence and repayment matters.

5. Keep a dated record of when documents were sent and when HMRC acknowledged them.

6. If no payment or meaningful update arrives after a reasonable period, chase HMRC specifically on whether the only remaining issue is authority and whether the case is otherwise approved for repayment.

7. Ask for confirmation of what, if anything, is still outstanding. A vague statement that the authority is “not correct” should be pressed for detail if the delay continues.

Conclusion

If HMRC has already reviewed a stamp duty repayment claim and then asks for evidence about the bank account or authority, a delay does not automatically mean the claim has failed. Very often, the issue is administrative. Where HMRC raises a technical objection to the authority, providing a more comprehensive replacement authority is usually the most effective way to move the repayment forward.

Legal References Used

• Finance Act 2003
• HMRC SDLT repayment and administration practice concerning taxpayer and agent authority

This page was last updated on 22 March 2026.

See all questions and answers categorized in this sitemap. Or use Google site search below.