Section 9: my recommendations for remedy
Jump to
Recommendations
I turn now to my recommendations for putting right the injustice sustained by Mr W and by Mr Y as set out in paragraphs 146 to 164 above; and any similar injustice sustained by the other complainants listed in Annex B. These recommendations are in line with my general approach to the provision of remedies – which, as I have explained, entails restoring the complainants to the position they would have been in had maladministration not occurred or, where that is not possible, compensating them appropriately.
This I will do in the light of both my detailed assessment of the extent to which the remedy sought by them can be deemed to be appropriate to provide redress for the injustice that I have found them to have suffered and my consideration of the submissions made to me by Defra on the question of what an appropriate remedy might be. I will also have regard to the fact that it is now too late to restore either Mr W or Mr Y to the position they were in before maladministration occurred.
My first recommendation is that the Chief Executive of RPA should send Mr W a personal, written apology which acknowledges the maladministration that occurred in his case and the injustice that resulted. This should be sent to Mr W within one month of the date of this report.
My second recommendation is that RPA should pay Mr W £3,500, within two months of the date of this report, in recognition of the stress, heartache, effect on his ability to make informed decisions and the cumulative financial impact that flowed from its maladministration.
My third recommendation is that the Chief Executive of RPA should send Mr Y a personal, written apology acknowledging the maladministration that occurred in his case and the injustice that resulted. This should be sent to Mr Y within one month of the date of this report.
My fourth recommendation is that RPA should pay Mr Y £5,500, within two months of the date of this report, in recognition of the anxiety, inconvenience, effect on his ability to make informed decisions and the cumulative financial impact that flowed from its maladministration.
My fifth recommendation is that RPA should carefully and critically review the complaints made by the 22 individuals listed in Annex B (whose details we will give to RPA) and identify where administrative errors have led to unremedied injustice. In doing so, it should keep in mind the general findings I have made in this report about the administration of the scheme and also the Ombudsman’s Principles. RPA should then provide any individuals who it finds have sustained such injustice with an appropriate remedy (financial or otherwise), being guided by the Principles for Remedy and the recommendations I have made in this report. RPA should complete this work within three months of the date of this report and inform my Office of the outcome on each case.
Ann Abraham
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
December 2009
Back to top
