My recommendations for remedy
Jump to
As I have explained, I have found that Mr A and his siblings suffered injustice in 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 taken into account what Mr A and his siblings told us that they were seeking by way of remedy. Mr A, on behalf of his siblings, said that he wanted the MoD and the Agency to reconsider the criteria which it applied when deciding on the injury to feelings payments and that he would also like the MoD and the Agency to pay him and his siblings compensation for the injury to their feelings and apologise for the injustice they have suffered.
I believe that the MoD and the Agency were jointly responsible for the injustice experienced by Mr A and his siblings but I see no sense in trying to apportion the responsibility for ‘Putting things right’. I propose that the MoD should take the lead, on behalf of the Agency, in remedying the injustice. In framing my recommendations in this way, my aim is to ensure that Mr A’s siblings, and Mr A’s wife, who has suffered alongside Mr A and who is now acting on his behalf, are not further inconvenienced or distressed by the actions of these bodies.
Putting things right for Mr A and his siblings – injury to feelings payment
My Principles for Remedy clearly outline the good practice I expect of bodies under my jurisdiction when remedying injustice. The MoD and the Agency failed to meet them. I have found that Mr A and his siblings were each entitled to receive the £4,000 payment for injury to feelings, but due to the MoD and the Agency’s maladministration they were denied that payment.
To remedy this I recommend that within four weeks of the date of this report being finalised:
- the MoD pays Mrs A, on behalf of Mr A, and each of Mr A’s siblings the £4,000 injury to feelings payment; and
- the MoD pays interest on each of those £4,000 payments, calculated from 30 August 2007 (the date Mr A and his siblings were incorrectly denied this payment), until the date the sum is finally paid to them.
Putting things right for Mr A and his siblings – further injustice suffered
The MoD and the Agency unnecessarily and offensively told Mr A and his siblings that the apology and payment of £500 they had received for earlier maladministration of the original scheme had been a mistake. Mr A had explained to both bodies previously that discussing his experiences during the Second World War caused him anxiety and distress; so, to add unnecessarily to his anxiety and distress was disgraceful, and callously disregarded the Principle of ‘Being customer focused’. The MoD and the Agency neither apologised for, nor properly explained their poor service; they failed to deal with Mr A and his siblings sensitively; and they showed no sign that they understood their needs.
These failures were further exacerbated because the MoD and the Agency had ample opportunity to ‘put things right’ when Mr A’s complaint was first brought to my Office, but they failed to do so. In my opinion this has demonstrated a lack of respect for the suffering Mr A and his siblings experienced during their incarceration. That lack of respect was manifested in the MoD’s poor handling of the earlier schemes; their denial of the injury to feelings payments; and the unthinking and callous retraction of their earlier apology.
To recognise the considerable injustice that Mr A and his siblings have suffered as a result of the MoD’s and the Agency’s maladministration, I recommend that within four weeks of the date of this report being finalised the MoD makes consolatory payments to Mrs A on Mr A’s behalf and to Mr A’s siblings of £5,000 each.
As I have found that the actions of the MoD and the Agency have been so poor, and the nature of the events in question so exceptional, I consider that Mrs A on behalf of Mr A, and each of Mr A’s siblings should receive an apology from the Secretary of State for Defence. I recommend that within four weeks of the date of this report the Secretary of State for Defence writes a personal apology to Mrs A on behalf of Mr A and also to each of Mr A’s siblings:
- apologising for the shameful way that the MoD and the Agency have dealt with these matters;
- apologising for the impact of all of their maladministration on Mr A and his siblings; and
- outlining the MoD’s plans to ensure that other individuals in the same situation will also be compensated appropriately.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report being finalised, I further recommend that the MoD review all other applicants under the injury to feelings scheme, and where it identifies individuals who are in the same position as Mr A and his siblings, that they should also receive £4,000 each with interest payable from the date their own claim was refused.
Finally, I am concerned that the MoD has failed repeatedly to learn from its mistakes. Despite findings of maladministration and injustice by the Ombudsman, criticism from the Public Administration Select Committee, an internal review and findings of indirect race discrimination by the courts, the MoD and the Agency failed repeatedly to ‘get it right’ or ‘put it right’. They compounded their errors and as a result they compounded the distress caused to Mr A and his siblings. In the light of these events, I consider it essential that the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Defence launches a review of the internal mechanisms in place which allowed senior civil servants to get things so wrong, for so long, and which have had such a devastating impact on individuals who deserved so much better.
