Recommendations
Jump to
154. I now turn to make recommendations to put right the unremedied injustice I have identified above. Having found that the way in which the scheme was devised and operated by DTI constituted maladministration causing injustice to Mrs A and others, I considered what recommendations I should make to DTI in order to remedy that injustice.
155. In doing so, I should emphasise that, where I find maladministration on the part of a body within my jurisdiction that causes an individual or individuals injustice that has not been remedied, my general approach is to seek to have that body put those caused injustice back into the position they would have been in, had the maladministration I have identified not occurred.
156. Where that is not possible, I look to other ways to remedy the injustice I have identified, for example, through the payment of compensation or by making changes to policies and procedures. This will depend on the circumstances of each case.
157. In making the following recommendations, I will bear this general approach in mind. I will also have regard to the nature of the maladministration I have identified, which relates to a scheme that is no longer in operation.
158. My first four recommendations are addressed to DTI – and relate to the position of Mrs A and those in a similar position to hers. My fifth recommendation is directed at the Government – and relates to the more general lessons that might be learned from this investigation and other similar investigations that I have conducted.
First recommendation
159. My first recommendation is that DTI should apologise to and make a consolatory payment to Mrs A, and to the other complainants identified in this report, to reflect tangibly the inconvenience and distress caused by the maladministration I have identified.
Second recommendation
160. My second recommendation is that DTI should review the eligibility criteria and scheme rules to ensure that they are consistent with the policy intention underlying the scheme.
Third recommendation
161. My third recommendation is that, once that is done, DTI should fully reconsider Mrs A’s case, and the cases of the other complainants identified in this report, in line with the criteria which it determines are consistent with the policy intention as a result of the above review. In the event of any additional award, interest for loss of use of those funds should also be paid.
Fourth recommendation
162. My fourth recommendation is that, following the review, DTI should consider the cases of any individuals who claim to have suffered similar injustice as a consequence of the maladministration I have identified. If that is shown to be the case, DTI should apologise and make consolatory payments to them; should review their cases in line with criteria it determines are consistent with the policy intention; and, in the event of any additional award, interest for loss of use of those funds should be paid.
Fifth recommendation
163. My final recommendation relates to ex gratia compensation schemes more generally. During my investigation – and others that I have conducted into similar schemes – it struck me that no central guidance exists for public bodies that specifically relates to the development and operation of ex gratia compensation schemes. Such guidance can, in my view, only be helpful to them – and may well assist in preventing a re-ocurrence of the problems I have identified in this report. I therefore recommend that such guidance be developed across government.
