My recommendations for remedy
Jump to
Introduction
As I have explained above, I have found that Ms M suffered injustice as a consequence of maladministration and that that injustice has not been remedied. I have applied my Principles for Remedy in making my recommendations for remedy, which are set out below.
I have also taken into account what Ms M told us she was seeking by way of remedy. Ms M said that she wanted to be compensated for the expense and inconvenience she experienced and the humiliation she has suffered through the wrongful disclosure of her private information. Ms M said that, in future, she would like the bodies complained about to write to her first if they intend to change her address details. She also said that, instead of asking her to remember security passwords, which only makes life more difficult for her, she would like to agree a single question that only she would be able to answer.
I believe that HM Revenue & Customs, the Child Support Agency and the Department for Work and Pensions are jointly responsible for the injustice experienced by Ms M but I see no sense in trying to apportion the responsibility for putting things right. Therefore, I am recommending that HM Revenue & Customs, the body whose actions lay at the heart of the problem, should take the lead in initiating action to avoid a repetition of the maladministration I have identified. In framing my recommendations in this way, my aim is to ensure that Ms M is not further inconvenienced or distressed by a repeat of the disparate approach taken to resolve her complaint to date.
Putting things right for Ms M
To recognise and remedy the injustice that has resulted from the maladministration I have identified, I recommend that within four weeks of the issue of this report:
- The Permanent Secretary of HM Revenue & Customs apologises on behalf of all of the bodies involved:
-
- for the collective failure to investigate Ms M’s complaint properly;
- for the failure to adopt a co-ordinated approach to resolving Ms M’s complaint;
- for the failure to provide an appropriate explanation and remedy for their mistakes; and
- for the impact of all of that maladministration on Ms M.
- HM Revenue & Customs pay Ms M £2,000 in recognition of all the injustice flowing from the maladministration identified in this report.
- HM Revenue & Customs check every database they own to ensure that Ms M’s address is now correctly recorded and that there is no link on any of their systems between Ms M and Mr A.
- HM Revenue & Customs liaise with the Child Support Agency and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that they too check every database they own to ensure that Ms M’s address is now correctly recorded and that there is no link on any of their systems between her and Mr A.
- HM Revenue & Customs write to Ms M on behalf of all the bodies to confirm when the actions I have recommended at (3) and (4) above have been taken.
- HM Revenue & Customs co-ordinate action amongst the bodies involved to explore how they might implement Ms M’s suggestion that she be asked a memorable question for security, rather than having to remember various passwords; and take responsibility for writing to Ms M confirming the solution agreed by all parties.
Putting things right for the future
HM Revenue & Customs, the Child Support Agency and the Department for Work and Pensions
In order to address the wider, cross-cutting issues identified as a result of this investigation, I recommend that within three months of the date of the issue of this report:
HM Revenue & Customs, together with the Child Support Agency and the Department for Work and Pensions and in discussion with the Cabinet Office, agree a customer focused protocol to deal with complaints of this kind, that is, those which cross organisational boundaries and arise from the sharing of information between them, which accords with the practices advocated by the Information Commissioner.24
HM Revenue & Customs, the Child Support Agency and the Department for Work and Pensions explain to Ms M, to her Member of Parliament and to the Ombudsman how they intend to take forward the above recommendation and provide a timescale for implementation.
Across government departments
In order to ensure that there is wider learning across other government departments with similar networked systems, I recommend that within six months of the date of issue of this report:
The Cabinet Office takes steps to ensure that lessons are learnt from Ms M’s experience and from this investigation and that appropriate guidance is disseminated to all government departments.
The Cabinet Office provides an update on progress to Ms M, to her Member of Parliament and to the Ombudsman.
Comments from the bodies complained about in response to my draft report
HM Revenue & Customs
In response to a draft of this report, the Permanent Secretary for Tax wrote to say that HM Revenue & Customs were sorry for the distress their error had caused Ms M.
The Permanent Secretary confirmed that HM Revenue & Customs accept all my recommendations for remedy.
The Permanent Secretary did explain, however, that it might not be practical to ask Ms M a single memorable question for security purposes, because such a change of procedure would have to apply to all HM Revenue & Customs’ customers. He said that HM Revenue & Customs would consider the idea and would write to Ms M once they have done so.
Child Support Agency/Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission
In response to a draft of this report, the Child Support Commissioner wrote to say that he fully accepted that the Child Support Agency had not demonstrated a willingness to investigate the erroneous data input. The Child Support Commissioner said that he was sorry for the obvious distress the matter had caused Ms M and for the impact of sending her financial information to her ex-partner.
The Child Support Commissioner said that he was unable to explain why it had taken the Child Support Agency five months to respond to Ms M’s request for copies of any correspondence intended for her which the Agency had sent to her ex-partner’s address; and said that he wished to apologise to Ms M for that oversight.
The Child Support Commissioner said that he would take a personal interest in the progress of the issues identified in my report and would ensure that the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission contributed fully to the resolution of the issues highlighted.
Department for Work and Pensions
In response to a draft of this report, the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Work and Pensions wrote to say that both he and the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus had great sympathy for Ms M regarding the impact of the error on her, however it arose, and fully recognised that all of the bodies she contacted should have responded more effectively. They wished to offer Ms M their personal apologies for all of the upset and distress which these events had clearly caused her.
The Permanent Secretary added that both he and the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus would take a personal interest in Ms M’s case to ensure that her complaint was resolved and that the Department for Work and Pensions learnt from it.
Comments from the Secretary to the Cabinet and the Head of the Home Civil Service in response to my draft report
In response to a draft of this report, the Secretary of the Cabinet and the Head of the Home Civil Service wrote to say that he welcomed my report and agreed with me that it raised serious questions about how information assurance procedures had been followed in Ms M’s case. He confirmed that the Cabinet Office would take steps to ensure that lessons were learnt from Ms M’s experience and this investigation, and that appropriate guidance was disseminated to government departments.
The Secretary of the Cabinet and the Head of the Home Civil Service told me that the Ministry of Justice was consulting widely with other government departments on a data sharing protocol, the aim of which was to help those departments that share personal data by setting out the issues that need to be considered before data sharing can take place. He told me that the Cabinet Office had discussed with the Ministry of Justice the need for the protocol to direct departments to consider how their own complaints procedures will operate before starting to share data.
The Secretary of the Cabinet and the Head of the Home Civil Service said that the Cabinet Office would also work with government departments to ensure that appropriate and more detailed guidance is produced on complaints procedures in relation to data sharing, which would be endorsed and disseminated to government departments via the Cabinet Office’s Information Assurance Delivery Group.
Ms M’s final comments
In her response to a draft of this report, Ms M said that trying to sort this problem out had made her very distressed and had impacted on her family life. She felt she could not move on from her separation from Mr A as the address mix-up provided a constant reminder of a very unfortunate episode in her life. Ms M said she was particularly concerned because she took a lot of trouble trying to separate her and Mr A’s affairs when they split up so that her credit rating was not adversely affected by his debts. She is still concerned that there may be some link between her and Mr A’s affairs within a government department, which may cause her problems again in the future.
Having read the draft report, Ms M commented that she was shocked, to say the least, that agencies she had trusted appeared to have lied to her Member of Parliament, made excuses, and delayed the investigation until such time as an audit trail was no longer available. Ms M said that this left her in a situation where she would never know why the error had happened, she would never have peace of mind that it would not happen again and she would never trust a government agency again. Ms M said that she found all of this ‘quite disturbing’ and ‘sad’.
