Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - April - September 2000 > Case No. C.1059/00
Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - April to September 2000
Volume 3 - 3rd REPORT - SESSION 2000-2001
Chapter 1
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY
10. Case No. C.1059/00
Benefits Agency and Appeals Service: error by Benefits Agency when completing a claim form on behalf of Mr F; delay by Benefits Agency and errors by the Appeals Service in resolving matters
Summary
The Benefits Agency completed an income support claim form on Mr F's behalf in March 1992. Questions relating to work status required a "yes" or "no" box to be ticked, but those relating to Mrs F were left blank. Mr F signed the declaration at the bottom of the form to say that the form had been read back to him and that the entries were correct. The Benefits Agency awarded Mr F income support on the basis that the couple had no income. Mr F claimed income support again in March 1993 and said that Mrs F worked. The Benefits Agency contacted Mrs F's employer for details of her pay and how long she had worked. Although Mrs F's employer replied in April 1993 the Benefits Agency took no action until October 1994, when they decided that Mr F had been overpaid income support and that the overpayment was recoverable. However, the Benefits Agency did not inform Mr F until November 1997. Mr F appealed against the decision to recover the overpayment. Mr F asked the Appeals Service for additional time to submit evidence to support his case, and the Appeals Service indicated to Mr F that he could have extra time, but the tribunal appeal went ahead before Mr F provided the evidence. The tribunal upheld the Benefits Agency's decision that the overpayment was recoverable.
Following the Ombudsman's intervention the Benefits Agency accepted that the question relating to Mrs F's work status should have been completed and not left blank. The Benefits Agency made a special payment of £2,755.41 which they offset against the recoverable overpayment, extinguishing the debt. The Chief Executive apologised for the delays on the case and the Benefits Agency made Mr F a consolatory payment of £150 for the inconvenience he had suffered. The Appeals Service acknowledged that they had overlooked Mr F's request for additional time to submit evidence and the Chief Executive wrote to Mr F to apologise.
Back to top
Full text
1. Mr F complained that the Benefits Agency (BA) made errors when he claimed income support in March 1992, causing him to receive an overpayment of benefit. BA then took over four years to notify him of the overpayment and to take the decision to recover it, by which time he had retired. Mr F also complains that the Independent Tribunal Service (the Tribunal Service) made errors when dealing with his appeal to a Social Security Appeal Tribunal. (The Independent Tribunal Service is now known as the Appeals Service, but for ease of reference I refer to it as the Tribunal Service throughout this report.)
Back to top
Investigation
2. Annex A describes the legislative and procedural background to the case and Annex B provides a summary of key events relevant to the investigation.
BA's comments on the case
3. In his comments to the Ombudsman on Mr F's complaint the then Chief Executive of BA acknowledged that there had been delays in the handling of Mr F's case and that he had not received the standard of service he was entitled to expect. The Chief Executive said that although BA had received details of Mrs F's employment in April 1993 they had taken no further action until October 1994 when an adjudication officer had decided that Mr F had been overpaid income support of £2,772.80, and that the overpayment was recoverable. BA had not told Mr F of the decision until 4 November 1997. Mr F appealed against the decision but the tribunal upheld the adjudication officer's decision. The Chief Executive said he had written personally to Mr F to apologise for the inconvenience he had been caused.
The Tribunal Service's comments on the complaint
4. In his comments to the Ombudsman on Mr F's complaint the Chief Executive of the Tribunal Service said that they had been unable to locate Mr F's papers and had reconstructed the file. He said that they had received Mr F's appeal on 8 December 1997 and had written to ask him what type of appeal hearing he needed. Their records showed that they received this information on 18 December and that the appeal was to be decided on paper evidence. The Tribunal Service had sent Mr F BA's schedule of evidence, which he had received on 24 April 1998, and the Tribunal Service had given him until 5 May to submit further evidence. The Chief Executive said that when an appeal is to be heard on paper evidence, the Tribunal Service do not notify the parties of a hearing date, and can arrange the hearing for any time after the expiry date for providing additional evidence. He said that the hearing had not been arranged when the local Citizen's Advice Bureau rang on 30 April 1998, and that the Tribunal Service had listed the case for hearing on 5 May. The appeal was heard on 18 May and the decision notice was issued on 26 May. The Chief Executive said that decision notices were normally issued on the day of the hearing and he regretted the delay. He said that the Tribunal Service had dealt with Mr F's appeal in accordance with usual procedures and he did not consider that they had caused Mr F any undue inconvenience or delay.
Back to top
Later Developments
5. On 11 February 2000, following representations by the Ombudsman's staff, the Tribunal Service accepted that they had overlooked the Citizen's Advice Bureau's request for additional time to submit evidence (Annex B, 10B.7) and said that the Chief Executive had written personally to Mr F to apologise. The Tribunal Service said that following the tribunal hearing, Mr F or the Citizen's Advice Bureau could have asked for the decision to be set aside because they had been unable to submit evidence, but the Tribunal Service had no record of such a request being made.
6. On 2 March 2000 BA told the Ombudsman's office that they had checked the amount of the overpayment and had reduced it to £2,755.41.
Back to top
Findings
7. The income support claim form completed by an interviewing officer at BA for Mr F in March 1992 did not contain details of Mrs F's employment. The only questions completed in relation to Mrs F were her name and marital status (Annex B, 10B.1). The question about Mrs F's work status required either a "yes" or a "no" box to be ticked but both boxes were left blank. Either the interviewing officer did not ask Mr F the question, or if he did ask the question, he did not indicate Mr F's response on the form. BA said that Mr F had signed the declaration on the form certifying that the officer had read back the entries on the form, and that the entries were correct. However, given that the section of the form relating to Mrs F's work status was blank there was nothing for the officer to read back to Mr F. Additionally, if the officer had read the form back properly to Mr F he would have noted that the form was not fully completed, and given him a further opportunity to mark the appropriate box, which he did not do. On the balance of probabilities I find that the officer either did not ask Mr F the questions relating to his wife, or did not properly complete the form. However, this does not completely absolve Mr F from responsibility; he had previously claimed income support and was aware that details of his wife's income were required, and he had signed the form to declare that the information was correct and complete. In my view both BA and Mr F must accept responsibility for the situation in which Mr F finds himself. I asked the Chief Executive of BA to consider rationalising recovery of part of the overpayment in recognition of BA's culpability. In response the Chief Executive said that BA accepted that the question on the claim form about Mrs F's earnings should have been completed and not left blank. However, Mr F had appealed against the requirement to repay the overpayment, and the decision of the appeal tribunal on 18 May 1998 was that Mr F had been overpaid income support and that the amount overpaid was recoverable. The Chief Executive said that recovery had been suspended since May 1998 pending the outcome of Mr F's complaint.
Back to top
8. BA first recognised that there might be a problem with Mr F's income support claim in March 1993. Mr F had claimed income support again and had declared that Mrs F was working (Annex B, 10B.2). BA wrote to her employer to establish when she had started work and how much she earned. The employer answered in April 1993, but BA took no further action until October 1994 when an adjudication officer reviewed the income support award of 11 March 1992 and decided that there was a recoverable overpayment (Annex B, 10B.4). BA then took until 4 November 1997 to inform Mr F (Annex B, 10B.5). This resulted in Mr F being informed of the overpayment after he had retired, when his ability to repay the money was likely to have diminished. I strongly criticise BA for these delays and welcome the Chief Executive's apologies. Again I asked the Chief Executive to consider waiving recovery of the overpayment. In reply the Chief Executive said that, regrettably, Mr F did not satisfy the current government accounting guidelines for waiver. However, because of the exceptional circumstances of the case she had passed the papers to BA's special payments team to consider (Annex A, 10A.6). The Chief Executive said that the special payments team had made an award of £2,755.41, offset against the recoverable overpayment to extinguish the debt. She said that Mr F had also been awarded a consolatory payment of £150 for the inconvenience he had been caused. I welcome those payments.
9. The Tribunal Service acknowledged that they had overlooked the Citizen's Advice Bureau's request for additional time to submit evidence on behalf of Mr F. I note that although Mr F or the Citizen's Advice Bureau could have requested that the tribunal decision be set aside on the grounds that they had been effectively prevented from putting forward evidence to the Tribunal Service, they did not do so. Nevertheless, I criticise the Tribunal Service for their oversight and welcome the Chief Executive's apologies.
Back to top
Conclusion
10. Mr F has not received the standard of service he is entitled to expect from BA. I regard the Chief Executive's apologies, the special payment of £2,755.41 to offset the overpayment and the consolatory payment of £150 for the inconvenience he suffered as a satisfactory outcome to a justified complaint.
Annex A – Legislative and procedural background
Annex B – Summary of key events relevant to the investigation
Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
|
