HMRC Assessment Tests

HMRC Situational Judgement Test

1. Question 1 of 10

   You are a business support officer at Calder Group. You run bookings for a public advice service. A woman emails asking to cancel her Thursday appointment and rebook in six weeks. In the same email she mentions she is being evicted on the fifteenth of next month. The adviser she is booked with covers housing, and the appointment in six weeks would fall after the eviction date. There is a duty housing slot most weekday mornings. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Reply asking whether the eviction date is why she wants to move the appointment, keep Thursday open for now, and tell her about the duty housing slots.
   2. Reply confirming the six-week rebooking and assure her the adviser will still be able to help then, since housing advice is available at any stage of a case.
   3. Cancel Thursday and rebook in six weeks exactly as she has asked, and add a note to the file about the eviction date she mentioned.
   4. Reply telling her that the appointment in six weeks falls after the fifteenth, and ask her to let you know what she would like to do.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: A. Reply asking whether the eviction date is why she wants to move the appointment, keep Thursday open for now, and tell her about the duty housing slots.

   Least effective: B. Reply confirming the six-week rebooking and assure her the adviser will still be able to help then, since housing advice is available at any stage of a case.

   B: Gives an assurance the timing does not support: the appointment she is being confirmed into falls after the date she is evicted, and telling her it will still help is the reason she will not look for anything sooner.

   C: Acts on the words and files the reason: the note records an eviction date that nobody will read before the appointment she has just moved past it.

   D: Names the problem and leaves the solution out: she now knows the date does not work and still has no idea that duty slots exist, which is the part that would actually help her.

   The most effective response is to reply asking whether the eviction date is why she wants to move the appointment, keep Thursday open for now, and tell her about the duty housing slots: her email contains a request and a fact that makes the request harmful to her, and holding Thursday keeps every option open until she has decided. It beats cancelling Thursday and rebooking in six weeks with a note about the eviction date, because a note on the file is read by nobody before the date passes. It beats telling her the six-week appointment falls after the fifteenth and asking what she would like to do, because that gives her the problem without the duty slots. The least effective response is confirming the six-week rebooking and assuring her the adviser can still help: it books a slot that lands after the eviction and adds a reassurance that makes it less likely she looks for help sooner. That makes it worse than the cancellation with a note, which at least records the reason, and worse than flagging the date, which is incomplete but true. The principle: when a request and a fact in the same message pull against each other, answer the fact before you act on the request.

2. Question 2 of 10

   You are a correspondence officer at Redhill Directorate. Standard practice is that complaints are answered within twenty working days and that a holding letter goes out at day ten. A complaint in front of you is about a bereavement service, and the complainant has written twice asking for a phone call instead of letters. Day ten is tomorrow. Your team leader is available and can authorise a call. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Send the standard holding letter tomorrow and promise the complainant that a call will follow shortly, when no call has been arranged with anybody.
   2. Ask your team leader today to authorise a phone call in place of the holding letter, setting out that the complainant has asked twice and what the complaint is about.
   3. Send the standard holding letter tomorrow as standard practice requires, and mention the request for a phone call only in the final response in twenty working days, if it is mentioned at all.
   4. Phone the complainant yourself tomorrow instead of sending the holding letter, and record afterwards on the file that you did so.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: B. Ask your team leader today to authorise a phone call in place of the holding letter, setting out that the complainant has asked twice and what the complaint is about.

   Least effective: A. Send the standard holding letter tomorrow and promise the complainant that a call will follow shortly, when no call has been arranged with anybody.

   A: Promises a call nobody has arranged: the complainant has asked twice, receives a third letter, and is now waiting for something that exists only in a sentence you wrote.

   C: Applies the practice and misses what it is for: the holding letter exists to keep somebody informed, and a bereaved complainant who has twice asked not to be written to is not being kept informed by it.

   D: Takes the decision rather than asking for it: the call is very likely right, and your team leader can authorise it today, so nothing is gained by leaving practice behind on your own.

   The most effective response is to ask your team leader today to authorise a phone call in place of the holding letter, setting out that the complainant has asked twice and what the complaint is about: the practice exists to keep complainants informed, a bereaved complainant has twice said letters are the wrong way, and the exception can be made properly rather than taken. It beats sending the standard holding letter and mentioning the request only in the final response, because a third letter is not keeping this person informed. It beats phoning her yourself instead of sending the letter, because the authorisation is available and costs nothing to ask for. The least effective response is sending the letter and promising a call nobody has arranged: she receives what she twice asked not to receive, and then waits for something that does not exist. That makes it worse than the rigid letter, which is honest, and worse than the unauthorised call, which does the thing she asked for. The principle: when practice produces the wrong outcome, get the exception authorised, and never soften a rigid answer with a promise nobody has made.

3. Question 3 of 10

   You are a casework assistant at Calder Group. You and a colleague, Priya, agreed to cover each other’s cases on leave days. You covered hers for two weeks in July. Since then she has twice been unavailable on days you had booked, and you cancelled both. You have leave booked in nine days and have already told your family. Priya is at her desk. Your team leader knows nothing of the arrangement. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Withdraw from the arrangement without discussing it after the way the last two were handled, and leave Priya to find her own cover in future.
   2. Ask Priya today to confirm she will cover the nine days, and tell her that if she cannot you will need to put it to your team leader this week.
   3. Cancel your own leave again without saying anything to Priya about it, and stop booking any days at all that depend on her being available to cover for you.
   4. Tell your team leader this week that the cover arrangement has broken down, and leave her to decide how leave is covered from now on.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: B. Ask Priya today to confirm she will cover the nine days, and tell her that if she cannot you will need to put it to your team leader this week.

   Least effective: A. Withdraw from the arrangement without discussing it after the way the last two were handled, and leave Priya to find her own cover in future.

   A: Withdraws from an agreement rather than testing it: Priya is at her desk and has never been asked directly, and the first she learns of it is when she needs cover and finds none.

   C: Absorbs the cost a third time: leave is cancelled again, the arrangement is quietly abandoned without either of you saying so, and nothing prevents the same next time.

   D: Escalates before the conversation: Priya has not been asked about the nine days, and a team leader who knows nothing of the arrangement is being asked to rule on it cold.

   The most effective response is to ask Priya today to confirm she will cover the nine days, and tell her that if she cannot you will put it to your team leader this week: the days are close, she has never actually been asked to confirm, and a direct ask with a stated fallback gives her the chance and you a route. It beats cancelling your own leave again without saying anything to her, because that costs you the leave and changes nothing. It beats telling your team leader the arrangement has broken down, because she knows nothing of it and Priya has not been asked. The least effective response is withdrawing from the arrangement without discussing it: she discovers it when she needs cover, and your own nine days are no more secure than before. That makes it worse than cancelling your leave, which keeps the arrangement alive, and worse than escalating, which puts the problem somewhere it can be solved. The principle: ask the person directly and say what happens if the answer is no, before you either absorb it again or end it silently.

4. Question 4 of 10

   You are a casework assistant at Ashmere Trust. You can see applicants’ case files, including their contact details and decision histories. A friend who runs a small letting agency asks you to check whether three named people on his tenancy waiting list have ever had a case refused. He offers to waive your own agency fees, about four hundred pounds. Nobody audits individual file views, and your team leader is available. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Refuse to look anything up and say nothing to anybody, on the view that a request declined is a request that never really happened.
   2. Tell him you cannot check the files but suggest he asks the three people directly whether they have ever had a case refused.
   3. Look the three names up this afternoon and tell him what you find, and take the gift of waived fees he has offered, since nobody audits which files are opened.
   4. Tell him you cannot look at files for anybody outside your work and that you will not, and report the request to your team leader today.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: D. Tell him you cannot look at files for anybody outside your work and that you will not, and report the request to your team leader today.

   Least effective: C. Look the three names up this afternoon and tell him what you find, and take the gift of waived fees he has offered, since nobody audits which files are opened.

   A: Declines and leaves the record empty: the request itself is the thing a team leader needs to know about, and with nobody auditing file views the only evidence it happened is your account of it.

   B: Solves it by moving the question: three people would be asked about refused cases by a landlord who has no right to the answer, which is the same intrusion by a different route.

   C: Takes a benefit for using your access: three applicants' case histories are handed to a landlord deciding whether to house them, and four hundred pounds makes it a transaction rather than a favour.

   The most effective response is to tell him you cannot look at files for anybody outside your work and that you will not, and report the request to your team leader today: the answer has to be an unambiguous no, and because nobody audits which files are opened, the only way this request exists anywhere outside your own head is if you report it. It beats refusing to look anything up and saying nothing to anybody, because a refusal nobody knows about leaves no record that access was solicited. It beats suggesting he asks the three people directly whether they have had a case refused, because that is the same intrusion by another route. The least effective response is looking the three names up and taking the waived fees: three applicants’ decision histories go to a landlord judging whether to house them, and four hundred pounds is taken for it. That makes it worse than the silent refusal, which discloses nothing, and worse than redirecting him, which opens no files. The principle: refuse access that is asked for outside the route, and report the request, especially where nothing else would ever record it.

5. Question 5 of 10

   You are a supplier liaison officer at Ashmere Trust. Three weeks ago you approved a variation to a cleaning contract that increased its value by eighteen thousand pounds. Variations over ten thousand need a second signature, which you did not get. The work has started and the supplier has invoiced. Nobody has queried it. Your contracts manager is in the office and the next contract audit is in four months. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Ask a colleague to countersign the variation now and date it three weeks ago, so the record shows a second approval that was never actually given.
   2. Email the contracts manager the variation for information, without mentioning that the second signature was never obtained at the time.
   3. Tell your contracts manager today that you approved an eighteen thousand pound variation without the second signature, and ask how it should be regularised.
   4. Keep it to yourself and hope the variation is not picked up before the audit in four months, by which time the work will be finished and paid.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: C. Tell your contracts manager today that you approved an eighteen thousand pound variation without the second signature, and ask how it should be regularised.

   Least effective: A. Ask a colleague to countersign the variation now and date it three weeks ago, so the record shows a second approval that was never actually given.

   A: Falsifies a second approval that never happened: a signature dated three weeks back turns a missed control into a record that positively states two people looked at eighteen thousand pounds when only one did.

   B: Discloses the document and not the defect: the manager receives a variation that looks properly approved, so the one fact that needed raising is the one thing left out.

   D: Keeps your own breach quiet and waits: eighteen thousand pounds was committed on one signature, and the plan is that nobody looks for four months.

   The most effective response is to tell your contracts manager today that you approved an eighteen thousand pound variation without the second signature, and ask how it should be regularised: the money is committed, the work has started and been invoiced, and only she can regularise it. It beats emailing her the variation for information without mentioning the missing signature, because that conceals the very thing that needed raising. It beats keeping it to yourself and hoping it is not picked up before the audit, because four months of hoping leaves the money spent and the approval still invalid. The least effective response is asking a colleague to countersign now and date it three weeks ago: a false document is added to a procedural breach, so the file stops showing a missed control and starts showing a check two people never made, and a colleague is drawn in. That makes it worse than silence, which leaves the record truthful, and worse than the information email, which invents nothing. The principle: a control you breached is reported, never reconstructed, and a backdated signature is worse than the breach it covers.

6. Question 6 of 10

   You are a programme support officer at Ashmere Trust. The system that logs contractor site inductions is down for at least two days. Nobody may work on site without a logged induction. Eleven contractors are due on site tomorrow morning and their inductions are booked. There is a paper form that predates the system, your health and safety lead is contactable today, and the site manager has asked you to sort it out. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Tell the site manager that the eleven contractors cannot start until the system is back up, and leave them to rearrange two days of site work as best they can.
   2. Ask the health and safety lead today whether the paper form can stand in for the two days, and get their answer in writing before tomorrow morning.
   3. Run the inductions tomorrow and log all eleven as completed on the system once it comes back up, dating them for tomorrow morning.
   4. Run the inductions on the paper form tomorrow and put the paper copies in a folder, without asking anybody whether that is acceptable.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: B. Ask the health and safety lead today whether the paper form can stand in for the two days, and get their answer in writing before tomorrow morning.

   Least effective: C. Run the inductions tomorrow and log all eleven as completed on the system once it comes back up, dating them for tomorrow morning.

   A: Stops the work without testing the alternative: a paper form predating the system exists and nobody has been asked about it, so two days of site work are lost to a question that has not been put.

   C: Logs inductions as completed on a date they were not: the record will show eleven system inductions the system was incapable of taking, which is the exact evidence anybody would rely on after an accident.

   D: Acts on a workaround nobody has authorised: the paper form may well be acceptable, but a folder of forms that health and safety has not agreed to is not an induction record anybody can stand behind.

   The most effective response is to ask the health and safety lead today whether the paper form can stand in for the two days, and get their answer in writing: eleven inductions are due tomorrow, a paper alternative exists, and only they can say whether it satisfies the requirement, with the written answer making the record defensible. It beats telling the site manager the contractors cannot start until the system is back, because the paper form has not been ruled out by anybody. It beats running the inductions on paper and filing the copies without asking anybody, because a folder nobody has authorised is not an induction record. The least effective response is running them and logging all eleven on the system dated for tomorrow morning: the record of who was inducted becomes a reconstruction, which is precisely the document relied on after an accident. That makes it worse than stopping the work, which is costly but true, and worse than the unauthorised folder, which records what actually happened. The principle: when a system failure blocks a control, get the substitute authorised, and never backfill the record as though the control had run.

7. Question 7 of 10

   You are a programme support officer at Brantwood Services. Every project closure needs a lessons-learned session recorded on the closure form before the project can be signed off. A project is being closed on Friday and the session has not happened; the team has dispersed and two members have left. Your programme manager wants the form completed today. Nothing stops you filling in the box, and nobody checks whether the session happened. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Complete the form leaving the lessons-learned box blank, and let whoever signs the closure off decide for themselves what they want to do about a session that never took place at all.
   2. Ask your programme manager to sign the closure off without the form, and raise the missing session at the next programme board instead.
   3. Tell your programme manager the session has not happened, and propose a thirty-minute call this week with the three people still here, because the form is the only record.
   4. Complete the lessons-learned box today from the project's own progress reports, and record the session as completed so the closure can be signed off on Friday.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: C. Tell your programme manager the session has not happened, and propose a thirty-minute call this week with the three people still here, because the form is the only record.

   Least effective: D. Complete the lessons-learned box today from the project's own progress reports, and record the session as completed so the closure can be signed off on Friday.

   A: Leaves a gap without naming it: an empty box on a closure form is indistinguishable from an oversight, and the signer has to guess whether the session was missed or forgotten.

   B: Solves the paperwork and loses the substance: the form can be waived, but the three people still here are the last chance anybody has to capture what the project learned.

   D: Records a session as completed that never took place: the closure file will say lessons were captured from a meeting nobody attended, and the two people who left took the only account of them.

   The most effective response is to tell your programme manager the session has not happened, and propose a thirty-minute call this week with the three people still here: the session is the substance and the form is the record of it, and half an hour produces something real for a Friday sign- off. It beats completing the form with the lessons-learned box left blank, because a blank box tells the signer nothing about whether the session was missed or forgotten. It beats asking her to sign the closure off without the form, because waiving it loses the last chance to capture what the project learned. The least effective response is filling the box from the project’s progress reports and recording the session as completed: a meeting that never happened is written into the closure file, so the organisation’s record is an account nobody gave. That makes it worse than the blank box, which claims nothing, and worse than waiving the form, which does not falsify it. The principle: when a record requires a step that has not happened, do the step or say it is missing, and never write it in.

8. Question 8 of 10

   You are an application assessor at Brantwood Services. An applicant’s entitlement depends on how a period of overseas study is counted, which only the policy team can determine. You emailed them nine days ago and have had no reply. The applicant’s decision is due on Friday, and a decision made without the determination will have to be withdrawn if the policy team later disagree. Their inbox is monitored by a duty officer each morning. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Send the policy team a reminder email today marked urgent, and issue the decision on Friday on your own reading if they have still not replied to either message by then.
   2. Hold the decision past Friday until the policy team reply, and say nothing to the applicant about why it is late.
   3. Issue the decision on Friday on your own reading of the overseas study period, without telling anybody that the policy team never replied.
   4. Ring the policy team's duty officer this morning, explain the Friday deadline and the withdrawal risk, and tell your team leader the decision may need to slip.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: D. Ring the policy team's duty officer this morning, explain the Friday deadline and the withdrawal risk, and tell your team leader the decision may need to slip.

   Least effective: C. Issue the decision on Friday on your own reading of the overseas study period, without telling anybody that the policy team never replied.

   A: Repeats the thing that has not worked: nine days of email have produced nothing, a duty officer is reachable by phone each morning, and Friday arrives whether or not a reminder is read.

   B: Buys certainty with somebody else's time: the applicant is left past their decision date with no explanation, and nobody has been told the deadline is going to be missed.

   C: Withholds the one fact that makes the decision unsafe: a determination that never came is the reason this decision may have to be withdrawn, and the applicant and your team leader are both left unaware of it.

   The most effective response is to ring the policy team’s duty officer this morning, explain the Friday deadline and the withdrawal risk, and tell your team leader the decision may need to slip: nine days of email have produced nothing, a duty officer is reachable, and those two facts are what get a determination prioritised. It beats sending another reminder marked urgent and issuing on Friday if nothing comes back, because email is the thing that has already failed for nine days. It beats holding the decision past Friday without telling the applicant why, because that leaves them with nothing. The least effective response is issuing on Friday on your own reading and telling nobody the policy team never replied: a decision that may have to be withdrawn goes out, and the reason it is unsafe is known to nobody but you. That makes it worse than another reminder, which at least keeps chasing, and worse than holding it, which does not issue an unsafe decision. The principle: when only another team can determine the point, use the route that actually reaches them and tell your own side what is at risk.

9. Question 9 of 10

   You are a shared services administrator at Ashmere Trust. Every month the leavers list from HR arrives after the payroll cut-off, so leavers are paid an extra month and the money is chased back afterwards. It has happened for at least a year. HR say the list is sent on time; payroll say it arrives late. Nobody has compared the timestamps. You have access to both mailboxes. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

   1. Carry on chasing the overpayments back each month as everybody has done for a year, and raise it again the next time somebody happens to mention it in a team meeting.
   2. Pull the send and receive timestamps for the last six months from both mailboxes, and put the comparison to the two team leaders with a proposed cut-off.
   3. Record each month's leavers list as received on the cut-off date whatever time it actually arrives, since the overpayments are recovered afterwards anyway.
   4. Email both team leaders saying that leavers are being overpaid every month, and ask them to sort out between themselves whose deadline is wrong.
   Show the answer

   Most effective: B. Pull the send and receive timestamps for the last six months from both mailboxes, and put the comparison to the two team leaders with a proposed cut-off.

   Least effective: C. Record each month's leavers list as received on the cut-off date whatever time it actually arrives, since the overpayments are recovered afterwards anyway.

   A: Keeps the workaround running for another year: the chase-back works, which is exactly why nobody has ever had to find out whose deadline is wrong.

   C: Records a receipt date that is not the receipt date: the timestamps are the only evidence of where the failure is, and writing the cut-off date over them destroys the thing that would settle it.

   D: Asks two teams to settle a dispute neither can win: HR and payroll have each stated their position for a year, and nothing changes without the timestamps that only you can pull.

   The most effective response is to pull the send and receive timestamps for the last six months from both mailboxes, and put the comparison to the two team leaders with a proposed cut-off: the dispute has run a year because nobody has the evidence, you are the only person with access to both sides, and that turns an argument into a decision. It beats chasing the overpayments back each month and raising it when somebody mentions it, because recovering the money is the reason nothing has ever had to change. It beats emailing both team leaders to say leavers are being overpaid and asking them to settle whose deadline is wrong, because both have stated their positions for a year and neither has the data. The least effective response is recording each month’s leavers list as received on the cut-off date whatever time it arrives: it writes over the only evidence capable of settling where the failure is, and the overpayments go on. That makes it worse than chasing the money, which preserves the record, and worse than the email, which harms nothing. The principle: when a recurring failure has two teams blaming each other, produce the evidence rather than repeating the workaround or the argument.

10. Question 10 of 10

    You are an application assessor at Redhill Directorate. Three weeks ago a panel awarded a training grant to twelve applicants, ranked on scores you supplied. You have found that one applicant’s score was entered as sixty-two instead of eighty-two, and corrected he would have ranked third rather than thirteenth. The twelve have been told. The panel chair is on leave for a week and there is a deputy chair. Which response below would be most effective, and which would be least effective?

    1. Correct the score in the system and say nothing to anybody, on the view that twelve awards have been announced and cannot easily be unpicked.
    2. Take the corrected score to the deputy chair today with what it does to the ranking, and ask how they want to handle an applicant who should have been awarded.
    3. Wait the week until the panel chair is back and put it to her then, because a decision about reopening an awarded grant round is properly hers.
    4. Email the applicant to say his score was recorded wrongly and that you are looking into what can be done about his application.
    Show the answer

    Most effective: B. Take the corrected score to the deputy chair today with what it does to the ranking, and ask how they want to handle an applicant who should have been awarded.

    Least effective: A. Correct the score in the system and say nothing to anybody, on the view that twelve awards have been announced and cannot easily be unpicked.

    A: Withholds a correction from everybody who could act on it: the thirteenth applicant lost a grant to a transcription error, and the corrected score sits in a system nobody will look at again.

    C: Waits for the ideal decision-maker rather than an available one: a deputy chair exists for a week's absence, and every day is a day the applicant does not know and cannot ask.

    D: Tells the person who cannot act and not the people who can: the applicant learns he was scored wrongly and that somebody is looking into it, with nobody yet asked to decide anything.

    The most effective response is to take the corrected score to the deputy chair today with what it does to the ranking, and ask how they want to handle an applicant who should have been awarded: a twenty-point transcription error moved him from third to thirteenth, a deputy chair exists precisely for a week’s absence, and the question is the panel’s rather than yours. It beats waiting the week until the panel chair is back, because that buys a marginally better decision-maker at the applicant’s expense. It beats emailing the applicant to say his score was recorded wrongly, because it tells the one person who cannot do anything about it before anybody who can. The least effective response is correcting the score in the system and saying nothing: the number is repaired and an applicant who should have been awarded a grant is the only party permanently unaware anything went wrong. That makes it worse than waiting for the chair, which reaches the panel, and worse than emailing him, which at least tells him the truth. The principle: when a decision rested on a figure that has since been corrected, take it to whoever can still revisit the decision, and take it to somebody who is actually there.