A Parliamentary watchdog is set to investigate the Inland Revenue's handling of a Skipton man's tax affairs after it made a series of blunders.
Dino Reardon, 66, spent two years fighting the Inland Revenue after it wrongly claimed he ran a business and tried to claim £25,000 in back tax.
At the end of October, the Inland Revenue Tax Adjudication - which investigates complaints against the IR - finally admitted that "serious mistakes were made" and he was given a substantial amount of compensation and an apology.
But Mr Reardon says he is still not satisfied and has written to his MP, David Curry, to demand that the Parliamentary Commissioner investigate.
Mr Curry said: "If I ask for it to be investigated then it will be. We have won the major part of the argument - the Inland Revenue acknowledge that they made a mistake. I think Mr Reardon has been badly treated and I shall have no hesitation in asking for the investigation.
"There seems to be a very clear prima facie case of something having gone wrong.
"At best it may be inefficiency and at worst wholly distorted treatment and that has to be put right. The sort of things that went wrong are for the Parliamentary Commissioner to look into." Mr Reardon, who was visited earlier this month by two Inland Revenue representatives, said: "I gave the Revenue three weeks to sort it out and then I said I would take things further.
"I have not got my interest from their incorrect taxing of my pension. I must be the only man in England to have been given two National Insurance numbers but no tax code.
"They are in such a mess and I am having to do their work for them. I have had the Superior Director come up from London with his assistant who spent two and a half hours at my house.
"I am doing this for the people of this country to show that one man can do this. I have had 26 different tax codes in around 18 months and still they can't get the right one.
"They have made so many mistakes it is unbelievable. I have got a self-assessment record for a business I never had."
No one from the Inland Revenue was available for comment. In the past it has refused to comment on individual cases.
Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article