Improving Services / Selected cases / Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - April - September 2000

Parliamentary

Access to official information

Health

Parliamentary

Access to official information

Health

Hot topics

Cymraeg

Freedom of Information

Accessibility

Other Ombudsmen and complaint handlers

Feedback

Satisfied with our service?

Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - April to September 2000

Volume 3 - 3rd REPORT - SESSION 2000-2001

Chapter 2

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Case No: C.917/00
Appeals Service: lost opportunity to apply for a Motability car because of severe delay in correcting an inaccurate decision notice

Mr J was awarded a higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance for two years from June 1996. Mr J appealed as he wanted to secure the award for three years ahead, a requirement for his application for a Motability car. On 8 May 1997 a disability appeal tribunal awarded Mr J the higher rate mobility component (and middle rate care component) for three years ahead. However the decision notice prepared by the Appeals Service gave the start date for both awards as 19 June 1996 (thus expiring on 18 June 1999, less than three years ahead). Mr J told the Appeals Service that the decision notice was wrong. Although the Appeals Service corrected it to show that the care component had been awarded until 18 June 2000, the mobility component award dates were left unchanged. The Appeals Service finally corrected the decision notice in April 1999 (after two further incorrect notices had been issued), by which time Mr J had lost the opportunity to apply for a Motability car. The Appeals Service acknowledged their shortcomings and awarded Mr J a consolatory payment of £150. It was left open for Mr J to seek a review of the disability living allowance award.

Case No: C.957/00
Appeals Service: loss or premature destruction of papers and failure to deal properly with correspondence

The Independent Tribunal Service, now known as the Appeals Service, either did not receive, or failed to reply to, a letter Miss F sent after her unsuccessful appeal in January 1997. The Appeals Service also failed to reply to correspondence from Miss F's solicitor. After the Appeals Service had told Miss F's solicitor that her application for the tribunal's decision to be set aside would have to be considered by a tribunal chairman, they took almost six months to tell her solicitor that that request had been refused. It appeared that the Appeals Service either lost or prematurely destroyed Miss F's file sometime between November 1998 and February 1999. Having realised that the file was missing the Appeals Service took action to reconstruct it and submitted Miss F's application to the Commissioners, by which time more than two years had passed since Miss F had first complained about the tribunal's original finding. A commissioner subsequently decided not to grant Miss F leave to appeal against that decision. After the Ombudsman's intervention, the Appeals Service made Miss F a consolatory payment of £100 for gross inconvenience and £100 for severe distress caused by their maladministration. The Appeals Service also agreed, at the Ombudsman's request, to consider compensating Miss F for any solicitors' costs she had incurred as a result of their errors. In the absence of a finding in Miss F's favour by the Commissioners, the Ombudsman found that she had not suffered a financial loss as a result of maladministration by the Appeals Service.

Case No: C.963/00
Appeals Service and Benefits Agency: mishandling of an appeal

The Benefits Agency wrongly recorded the date of an appeal made by Mr C leading them and the Appeals Service to treat it - incorrectly - as made out of time. The Appeals Service registered the appeal twice causing further confusion. Mr C died after the appeal had been accepted by the appeal tribunal chairman but the Appeals Service failed to remove his appeal from the list for hearing while enquiries were made about an appointee. As a result, a hearing took place which later had to be set aside and another hearing arranged. The Appeals Service made Mrs C an ex gratia payment in recognition of the distress caused by the delays and problems with the appeal and the Benefits Agency made a similar payment of £125. The Chief Executives of the Appeals Service and the Benefits Agency apologised for their poor performance; and the Appeals Service took steps to prevent a recurrence.

Case No: C.1068/00
Appeals Service: delays and the loss of case papers

In May 1997 a tribunal decided that Mrs H no longer qualified for incapacity benefit. The Independent Tribunal Service (now Appeals Service) repeatedly failed to respond to her representative's requests for a copy of the tribunal's decision, only doing so some five months after the hearing. Having received a copy of the decision, Mrs H applied for it to be set aside. That application was rejected because it was out of time. After the Social Security Commissioners refused to allow Mrs H leave to appeal, the Independent Tribunal Service were slow to respond to her representative's correspondence and, when they did, they failed to address all the points that he raised. It was not until March 1999 that the Independent Tribunal Service acknowledged that they had either lost or prematurely destroyed Mrs H's file and, having done so, they were slow to reconstruct those papers. A tribunal chairman later set aside the tribunal's original decision and arrangements were made for Mrs H's appeal to be reheard. That tribunal upheld the original decision that Mrs H was not entitled to incapacity benefit. The Independent Tribunal Service apologised to Mrs H and made her a consolatory payment of £100 for the inconvenience caused.

Case No: C.1094/00
Appeals Service: maladministration caused adjournment of two appeal tribunal hearings

Mr W appealed against three decisions made by the Benefits Agency. The first hearing arranged by the Independent Tribunal Service (now the Appeals Service) did not take place because they omitted Mr W's case from that day's session list. A second tribunal convened but adjourned because the tribunal wanted further submissions. The chairman also directed the Benefits Agency to attend the next hearing. A third tribunal convened and was also adjourned; the Appeals Service had not put relevant papers before the tribunal members until the day of the hearing itself. The Benefits Agency also failed to attend. Mr W's Counsel, solicitor and medical expert attended all three hearings and charged their time and travelling costs - amounting to £6,908.10 - to Mr W. The solicitors asked the Appeals Service to pay those additional legal costs on Mr W's behalf. The Appeals Service refused. Following the Ombudsman's intervention the Appeals Service's awarded Mr W a consolatory payment and agreed to meet the expenses that Counsel and the medical experts had incurred in respect of two of the aborted hearings. The Appeals Service also agreed to consider reimbursing the solicitors' costs.

Case No: C.1569/99
Benefits Agency: failure to give a full reply to a request for information and poor handling of benefit payments for a long-stay hospital patient

Mr X asked the Benefits Agency for information about the benefits which would be payable for his disabled daughter when she moved from a residential care home to hospital accommodation and the benefits which would be received for weekends which she would regularly spend at home. The Benefits Agency answered with brief and incomplete information about payments of disability living allowance for home leave from hospital. Mr X found after his daughter's transfer to hospital that her severe disablement allowance and her income support were reduced and disability living allowance was payable for only one day of home leave which meant that Mrs X's claim to invalid care allowance ended. The Ombudsman found that the Benefits Agency had provided inadequate advice to Mr X, had failed to answer his subsequent requests for information, had taken too long to pay arrears of disability living allowance and had made mistakes in payments of income support to Mr and Mrs X for their daughter. He did not find that the Benefits Agency's poor advice had led to a quantifiable financial loss for Mr X. The Benefits Agency offered Mr X £200 for the gross inconvenience they had caused him by their poor management of his daughter's case.

Case No: C.162/00
Benefits Agency: alleged mishandling of withdrawal of disability living allowance and mishandling of complaints about conduct of medical examinations

Mr J complained that the Benefits Agency wrongly withdrew his wife's disability living allowance after an inadequate examination by an examining medical practitioner. The Benefits Agency organised another examination by a different examining medical practitioner. Mr and Mrs J remained dissatisfied and sent the Benefits Agency tape recordings of both examinations which, they said, demonstrated inaccuracies and distortions in the doctors' reports. Mrs J's disability living allowance was partly restored but remained under appeal. After Mr and Mrs J's Member of Parliament had intervened, the Benefits Agency investigated their complaints but failed to notify the Member or Mr and Mrs J of the outcome for several months. The Benefits Agency did not accept that the second doctor's report was fundamentally flawed. The Benefits Agency paid Mrs J compensation for loss of use of benefit once it was partly restored and also reimbursed her expenses in pursuing her case. After the Ombudsman's intervention the Benefits Agency also made Mr and Mrs J a consolatory payment of £100 for the poor handling of their complaints.

Case No: C.284/00
Benefits Agency: suspension of benefit as a result of the complainant not attending for medical examinations under the "all work test"

Mr P claimed incapacity benefit on the grounds that he was suffering from agoraphobia. He did not satisfy the national insurance contribution conditions for that benefit and so received national insurance credits only. However, he claimed and was awarded income support on the basis that he was unfit for work. The Benefits Agency medical services made a number of appointments for Mr P to attend for a medical examination but he failed to keep them. Mr P contended that on each occasion that he received notification of such an appointment he telephoned the Benefits Agency to explain that he could not leave his home because of his condition. When Mr P failed to attend for a medical examination in October 1998 the Benefits Agency withdrew his benefit. That was reinstated on appeal and the Benefits Agency paid him arrears of benefit totalling £1,594.60. In January 2000 medical services arranged for a medical examination to be carried out at Mr P's home but that was not successful as the doctor did not receive a reply when he called. The Ombudsman found that medical services should have arranged a domiciliary visit earlier than they did and that the Benefits Agency could have been more customer orientated in their dealings with Mr P. The Chief Executive offered apologies for the Benefits Agency's shortcomings.

Case No: C.451/00
Benefits Agency: delays and errors in the handling of claims for incapacity benefit and retirement pension - late payment of the winter fuel payment

The Benefits Agency made a transcription error when they transferred Mr D's records onto a new computer system. The Benefits Agency wrongly recorded Mr D's date of birth as 4 March 1928 when it should have been a year later. That error had serious ramifications for Mr D as his claim for incapacity benefit was interrupted in March 1998 when his order book was not replaced, because the Benefits Agency were under the mistaken impression that Mr D had reached the age of 70 and was no longer entitled to receive that benefit. In the short term the Benefits Agency made payments of benefit to Mr D by girocheque but some of those payments were made late and on two occasions benefit was paid at the incorrect rate. Mr D also complained about the Benefits Agency's handling of the changeover from incapacity benefit to retirement pension in March 1999 when he did reach 70 years of age. Although the Benefits Agency did not send Mr D a retirement pension claim form in advance of his 70th birthday, they sent him a form on 5 March 1999. When the Benefits Agency received the completed form on 12 April they quickly dealt with it, sent order books to Mr and Mrs D and paid the arrears that were due. The Benefits Agency decided that compensation was not due for the loss of benefit paid late. The Ombudsman did not challenge that decision as, although there were clearly delays in the payment of benefit, those delays were not of such a length to qualify for compensation under the Department of Social Security's compensation scheme. However, the Benefits Agency made payments totalling £141.43 to Mr D in respect of gross inconvenience and out-of-pocket expenses. They also agreed to consider further compensation for severe distress should Mr D provide objective evidence. The then Chief Executive apologised for the Benefits Agency's failings.

Case No: C.542/00
Benefits Agency: refusal to compensate for late payment of arrears of attendance allowance

Miss J made four applications for attendance allowance, in 1980, 1989, 1990 and 1991, which were all refused. She had been awarded mobility allowance in 1981 when the examining doctor noted that she was blind and suffered from congestive heart failure and neutropenia. Her mobility allowance automatically converted into the mobility component of disability living allowance in 1992, but her application for the care component was refused. Miss J asked for a review, saying that a recent bone scan had revealed a 36% bone loss as the result of osteoporosis. In January 1993 she was awarded the lowest rate of the care component from April 1992. In June 1993 doctors and a social worker wrote to the Benefits Agency on Miss J's behalf and she was awarded the middle rate of the care component from that date. Miss J then, in September 1993, asked for the award to be backdated to her first or second application for attendance allowance as she had been as much in need of care at that time. In October 1993 she was awarded attendance allowance from February 1992 and the middle rate of the disability living allowance care component from April 1992. In 1996 Miss J again raised the question of her first attendance allowance claim. The Benefits Agency allowed her solicitors access to her papers and they established from her invalidity benefit file that she had claimed attendance allowance in 1980. In 1997 the Benefits Agency refused to review the refusals of attendance allowance. Miss J appealed first to a disability appeal tribunal, who also refused to review the decisions, and then to a Social Security Commissioner, who directed that the appeal should be heard by another tribunal. In December 1998 a tribunal awarded Miss J attendance allowance from 1989 and, in 1999, the Benefits Agency decided that Miss J was entitled to attendance allowance from 1980 and arranged backdated payments.

Miss J contended that she should have been awarded the benefit on her first application and complained that the Benefits Agency had acted incorrectly by failing consistently to ask her consultants for reports about her condition. The Benefits Agency did not accept that as an error. After the Ombudsman's intervention, however, the Benefits Agency found that they had not treated the review in 1997 correctly and paid Miss J interest from that date, £100 compensation for gross inconvenience and £50 for expenses. The Ombudsman did not uphold Miss J's complaint that the Benefits Agency had been incorrect in not taking advice from her consultants; but he found that there had been shortcomings in the way they had dealt with her request in 1993 for her claims to be reconsidered, failing, in particular, to consider an out-of-time review of decisions relating to her claims of 1989, 1990 and 1991. The Chief Executive agreed to make further interest payments from September 1993, so that a total of £2,182.44 in interest has been paid to Miss J. The Benefits Agency also awarded Miss J £500 for severe distress and £869.50 to reimburse her solicitors' fees.

Case No: C.613/00
Benefits Agency: mishandling of a claim for income support

In July 1998 Mrs S, who was acting as an appointee for her brother, Mr M, told her local Benefits Agency office that Mr M had been awarded compensation in respect of a personal injuries claim. That impacted on Mr M's claim for income support. On 12 August an adjudication officer decided that Mr M had capital amounting to £6,976.01 as at 22 July and that that amount should be used when calculating the amount of income support due to him. In November Mrs S's solicitors wrote to the Benefits Agency saying that Mr M's capital had reduced to under £3,000 and that deductions should not be made from Mr M's benefit. The Benefits Agency lost the letter from the solicitors and did not take any substantive action on the case until mid-January 1999, after the solicitors had faxed a copy of their letter. The Benefits Agency reviewed Mr M's claim for income support to take account of the various changes in the capital balance and increased the rate of benefit paid. However, they failed to pay the arrears of benefit until prompted by the solicitors. In February 1999 the Benefits Agency calculated that arrears totalling £242.90 were due to Mr M (that took into account an overpayment of £56.20). Mrs S asked for a full explanation of how that amount had been calculated, including why the overpayment had been deducted from the arrears. The Benefits Agency failed to provide that explanation. The Benefits Agency checked the previous decisions and calculations of benefit and noted that a further overpayment of £76 had arisen, but it was not recoverable as it had been caused by official error. After offsetting the earlier arrears payment the Benefits Agency calculated that further arrears totalling £1 were due to Mr M. The Benefits Agency agreed to make a consolatory payment to Mrs S of £50 for gross inconvenience. The Benefits Agency also agreed to consider reimbursing Mrs S any out-of-pocket expenses she had incurred in pursuing her case, subject to her providing satisfactory evidence. The then Chief Executive apologised for the Benefits Agency's failings.

Case No: C.680/00
Benefits Agency: mishandled claim for income support resulting in failure to make regular and timely payments of mortgage interest

Mrs E claimed income support, including housing costs, in February 1994. The Benefits Agency made irregular payments of housing costs, some to Mrs E and some to her mortgage lender, until July 1994 when the Benefits Agency started to make automated payments to the lender. The Benefits Agency made some payments very late and failed to make payment for some dates in April and July 1994. It took the Benefits Agency over two years to recognise and rectify the underpayments. In addition the Benefits Agency's correspondence with Mrs E was confusing and contained some factual inaccuracies. After the Ombudsman's intervention the Benefits Agency agreed to pay Mrs E £107.89 to compensate her for the additional interest she was charged by the mortgage lender for the late payments, £50 towards her costs and a consolatory payment of £50 for gross inconvenience. The Benefits Agency also gave an assurance that they would consider additional special payments if Mrs E provided evidence of severe distress or out-of-pocket expenses in excess of £50.

Case No: C.709/00
Benefits Agency and Child Support Agency: disclosure by a fraud officer, to a claimant under investigation for suspected fraud, of the source of the fraud referral

When a Benefits Agency fraud investigation officer revealed to a claimant that his investigation had resulted from a referral by the Child Support Agency (CSA), she assumed that her ex-husband, Mr S, had made an allegation of fraud against her. CSA's referral, however, resulted from inferences they had drawn from a conversation with Mr S (rather than from a direct allegation), having assured him that he would be protected by confidentiality. The Ombudsman found that the Benefits Agency were incorrect in revealing CSA as the source of the fraud enquiry. The Ombudsman also found that the Benefits Agency handled Mr S's complaint inadequately. Although they apologised for their breach of confidentiality they did not investigate with CSA the circumstances that led to the referral and thus failed to appreciate that Mr S had consistently wished not to be associated with any allegations against his ex-wife. They sent an unconvincing letter of explanation to Mr S's ex-wife. The Benefits Agency also failed to treat Mr S's request for information about the Benefits Agency's disciplinary enquiry into the incident as a request under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information although their refusal to disclose that information was in line with the terms of the Code. The Ombudsman did not uphold Mr S's complaint that he had suffered financially as a result of the Benefits Agency's actions but recognised that the breach in confidentiality would have added to the difficulties in his relationship with his ex-wife and children. The former Chief Executive had apologised to Mr S for the embarrassment he suffered and the Benefits Agency made him a consolatory payment of £200. The Chief Executive agreed to remind staff of the importance of dealing with all requests for information under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in accordance with the Code's requirements.

Case No: C.735/00
Benefits Agency: avoidable delays and poor service in dealing with a renewal claim to disability living allowance and mishandling of a complaint about a medical report

The Ombudsman found that the Benefits Agency had taken too long to arrange for a medical examination in connection with Mr X's claim for the renewal of his award of disability living allowance. His claim was refused and on his request the Benefits Agency provided him with a copy of the medical report. Mr X, who lived in a bungalow, found that the report said that he lived in a house and had been observed climbing stairs. He complained, but the Benefits Agency failed to obtain a new medical report quickly, with the result that the hearing of his appeal against the disallowance of his benefit was delayed by two months. The Benefits Agency also failed for about four months to take action on Mr X's complaint about the inaccuracies in the medical report and he had to wait a further three months before receiving a full reply. He complained to the Benefits Agency's independent complaints tier, which upheld his complaint, but the Benefits Agency gave him little detailed information about the action taken as a result of their recommendations. The Benefits Agency paid Mr X £50 for the gross inconvenience he had experienced and £50 for worry and distress.

Case No: C.760/00
Benefits Agency: recovery of overpaid income support from a deceased person's estate

Mr B's mother received income support from 1977 until she died in 1997. The Benefits Agency last reviewed her capital in 1980. In June 1997 the Benefits Agency informed Mr B, as executor, that there had been an overpayment of income support to his late mother, from late October 1992 onward, of £2,491.05. An independent tribunal subsequently confirmed the amount. The Ombudsman noted some shortcomings in the way the Benefits Agency had dealt with the case, but did not regard the Benefits Agency's failure to review Mrs B's entitlement, during her lifetime, as maladministrative. The Ombudsman noted from available case law that the onus remained on Mrs B to notify the Benefits Agency of relevant changes in her circumstances which might have had a bearing on her entitlement to benefit.

Case No: C.878/00
Benefits Agency: incorrect sending of a letter warning of legal action

The Benefits Agency mistakenly sent Mr T a warning of their intention to take legal action over his apparent failure to pay an instalment under a benefit overpayment recovery plan relating to his late father. Mr T had in fact made the payment under a standing order on the due date but the Benefits Agency had taken eight days to process it. The Benefits Agency admitted their error and reviewed their procedures and decided to increase the interval between the due date of a payment and the issue of a warning letter when that payment had not been made. The Benefits Agency reimbursed Mr T for two telephone calls that he had made to his bank and to the Benefits Agency in order to resolve the matter but declined to offer Mr T any further compensation. Following the Ombudsman's intervention, the Benefits Agency made Mr T a special payment of £25 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience he had suffered as a result of the Benefits Agency's maladministration. They also agreed to consider a claim by Mr T for any further out-of-pocket expenses should he provide evidence of those costs. The Chief Executive apologised for the Benefits Agency's failings.

Case No: C.987/00
Benefits Agency: delay and mishandling of a review of a decision on entitlement to disability living allowance

In December 1996 Mrs L received an award of disability living allowance for life, at the higher rate mobility component and middle rate care component. Following a review under the Benefit Integrity Project, the Benefits Agency told Mrs L in November 1998 that she no longer qualified for the mobility component and for only the lowest rate of care component. Mrs L challenged the decision. In early July 1999 the Benefits Agency informed her that, on review, another decision maker had decided that there had been no ground to review the 1996 award. Mrs L, who already suffered from depression associated with her disabilities, complained that the Benefits Agency's actions had put her through unnecessary trauma. The Ombudsman noted that the latest decision had been based on four new medical reports; but he criticised the Benefits Agency for delays, a lack of properly co-ordinated action, and the absence of a sense of urgency that Mrs L's case merited. The Benefits Agency ultimately decided to pay consolatory payments to Mrs L, for gross inconvenience and severe distress, totalling £400. They also reimbursed incidental expenses of £20.

Case No: C.1016/00
Benefits Agency: misdirection as to the conditions for claiming invalid care allowance

The Benefits Agency misdirected Mrs B by failing to give her accurate information about the scope and effect of the notional earnings rules. Mrs B telephoned the Benefits Agency for advice about the earnings limit for receipt of invalid care allowance and the Benefits Agency told her that her nanny, Miss H, could earn up to £50 per week and qualify for invalid care allowance. They did not tell her about the notional earnings provisions which require the Benefits Agency to take account of the market rate of pay for the provision of such services. Six weeks after Miss H had claimed the allowance the Benefits Agency rejected her application on the grounds that while she was paid less than the earnings limit of £50, the board and lodging she received were worth £40, pushing her income over the £50 limit. That was incorrect. Following the adjudication officer's decision Mrs B paid Miss H £259 in respect of the allowance Miss H had failed to obtain from the Benefits Agency, resigned from her job and looked after her children herself. Mrs B contended that the Benefits Agency's misdirection had put her in that position, and asked the Benefits Agency to compensate her for her financial loss. The Benefits Agency subsequently compensated Mrs B for the payment of £259 but refused to make any payments for loss of earnings caused by her leaving employment. It was not until after the intervention of the Ombudsman that the Benefits Agency recognised the true nature of their misdirection. The Benefits Agency agreed to reconsider the question of compensation for loss of earnings. However, having investigated the matter further they decided that it had not been demonstrated that Mrs B had suffered a loss of earnings as a result of the misdirection. They accepted that their misdirection had caused Mrs B gross inconvenience and made her an ex gratia payment of £500 in recognition of that.

Case No: C.1046/00
Benefits Agency and the Appeals Service: mishandling of an appeal to a social security appeal tribunal

When Mr M appealed against a decision made by the Benefits Agency concerning the amount of benefit payable to Mr M's partner, the Benefits Agency took too long to connect the appeal with his partner's claim. Thereafter, although the subject matter of Mr M's appeal was not within the jurisdiction of a social security appeal tribunal, the Benefits Agency failed to explain that to Mr M or to inform the Independent Tribunal Service (now the Appeals Service). The Ombudsman found that both the Benefits Agency and the Independent Tribunal Service dealt with the appeal in a confused and wholly inappropriate manner, made worse by the long delays between their actions. The Benefits Agency and the Independent Tribunal Service agreed to make consolatory payments totalling £100 together with a payment of £5 towards Mr M's out-of-pocket expenses.

Case No: C.1092/00
Benefits Agency: error in handling a compensation request

Mr X complained that the Benefits Agency had refused to make Mrs Y an ex gratia payment for loss of entitlement to income support even though the loss had arisen as a result of their mishandling of the claim as they had failed to contact Mr X or Mrs Y for further information. The Ombudsman found that Mr X's complaint was justified. The Benefits Agency accepted that they had not told their special payments section of the procedural error when they prepared the compensation submission. The Benefits Agency made an ex gratia payment of £635.04 for loss of benefit, £56.49 interest and a consolatory payment of £50.

Case No: C.1106/00
Benefits Agency: compensation for delayed payment of backdated industrial injuries disablement benefit awarded by a social security appeal tribunal

In May 1995 Mr W claimed industrial injuries disablement benefit due to an accident at work in 1956. The adjudication officer decided that an industrial accident had not been established and turned down Mr W's claim. In April 1996 an appeal tribunal decided that the accident in September 1956 had been an industrial accident. Mr W told the Benefits Agency that he had been writing to them about his accident since 1978. The Benefits Agency did not have any record of his correspondence and awarded Mr W industrial injuries disablement benefit from February 1995 (three months prior to the date of his claim). Mr W appealed and in August 1998 an appeal tribunal decided, on the basis of new evidence, that Mr W had made a claim for an industrial injury in September 1975. It took the Benefits Agency till May 1999 to calculate the arrears due and because of that delay they paid interest from October 1998, two months after the appeal tribunal's decision. The Benefits Agency did not pay interest from September 1975 because they did not consider that the adjudication officer's decision not to backdate Mr W's claim to that date had been erroneous. The Ombudsman concurred with the Benefits Agency's view that the fact that an appeal tribunal decided that Mr W had established good cause for the delay in claiming the benefit, and overturned the adjudication officer's decision, was not of itself evidence of maladministration.

Case No: C.1120/00
Benefits Agency: delay in resolving benefit claims, failure to respond to a complaint and to progress a claim for compensation

When Mrs M claimed income support in May 1997 the Benefits Agency advised that Mr M should claim instead as he was entitled to a disability premium. A minor delay ensued and the Benefits Agency awarded income support from July 1997. Mr M asked for housing costs, but the Benefits Agency failed to make payment until April 1998. Mr M requested compensation for the delay. The Benefits Agency delayed in replying to that request, and then asked for evidence of the costs incurred. Mr M refused to supply bank statements so the Benefits Agency refused to pay compensation. Meanwhile, the Benefits Agency realised that they had not taken Mrs M's incapacity benefit into account when they awarded income support. The Benefits Agency told Mr M they had overpaid him £972.17 and requested repayment. Mr M appealed and the Benefits Agency admitted that the overpayment arose through official error and that it was not recoverable. In the meantime, in August 1998, Mrs M completed a renewal claim form for disability living allowance. Due to errors and delays this was not reviewed until January 1999 by which time the previous award had expired. Mrs M complained about a medical examination carried out by Medical Services on behalf of the Benefits Agency as part of the review. The Benefits Agency passed the complaint to Medical Services in February 1999 but it was not until a year later, following the Ombudsman's intervention, that Mrs M received a full reply.

Following the Ombudsman's investigation the Benefits Agency accepted that they appeared to have misadvised Mrs M in May 1997 as she was also entitled to disability premium. They made a special payment of £103.76, plus £14.07 interest, to compensate for the loss of statutory entitlement to income support between May and July 1997. The Benefits Agency further accepted that they had delayed in paying housing costs, and that those housing costs had been incorrectly calculated. The Benefits Agency made a further special payment of £33.51 interest on the late payment. Following representations by the Ombudsman's staff the Benefits Agency agreed that the overpayment totalled £2,958.14, not £972.17, and confirmed that they would not recover that money. In addition the Benefits Agency paid Mr and Mrs M £300 for the gross inconvenience they had been caused.

Case No: C.1131/00
Benefits Agency: errors and delays in handling claims for a disability living allowance

The Ombudsman found that the Benefits Agency had mismanaged Mr X's two claims to disability living allowance and subsequent review requests. After refusing Mr X's first claim to disability living allowance, the Benefits Agency provided confusing advice about the need to make a new claim when his condition deteriorated. When Mr X made a new claim, the Benefits Agency failed to record it on their computer system and sent the papers to the wrong disability benefits centre which caused delay and resulted in an inappropriate computer-generated letter being sent to Mr X. The Benefits Agency also mishandled Mr X's request for a review of the award of disability living allowance resulting from his second claim, losing his file and failing to keep computer records up to date causing them to omit to notify him of his right of appeal after the review had been carried out. The Chief Executive apologised personally to Mr X and the Benefits Agency awarded him £50 in recognition of the gross inconvenience caused by their actions.

Case No: C.1267/00
Benefits Agency: delay in submitting appeal to the Appeals Service

Mrs C sent the Benefits Agency an appeal against a decision to reject her application for severe disablement allowance in September 1998. Her representative sent a copy in December when the original could not be found. The Ombudsman found that the Benefits Agency then failed to follow the prescribed procedure for dealing with such appeals, causing unacceptable delay. The case papers were not referred in the proper form to the disability benefits centre until August 1999 and the appeal submission was not put to the Appeals Service until October. The Benefits Agency agreed to make a consolatory payment of £50. The Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency wrote to Mrs C's representative to apologise for any inconvenience caused by the Benefits Agency's poor handling of her representations.

Case No: C.1285/00
Benefits Agency: mishandling of an overpayment of income support

On 30 April 1997 the Benefits Agency decided that Mr L had not been entitled to income support since 29 June 1995 because of previously undisclosed capital and withdrew income support from 7 May. On 23 March 1998 an Appeal Tribunal decided that Mr L had not been entitled to income support until 8 December 1996 only. The Benefits Agency reinstated income support from 27 March 1998 but took too long to take account of the Tribunal's decision in calculating the overpayment and to determine the income support arrears due which were to be offset against it. They did not give Mr L the final figures until 9 December 1999. In the meantime, they ignored letters from his representative. After the Ombudsman's intervention the Benefits Agency paid Mr L compensation of £8.87 for the late reinstatement of his income support and made him a consolatory payment of £25. The Chief Executive apologised to Mr L.

Case No: C.1394/00
Benefits Agency: delays in dealing with claim for income support

Mr A complained that the Benefits Agency failed to act on or acknowledge his application for backdated income support after the Home Office's decision to grant him indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a refugee. Following the Ombudsman's intervention, the Benefits Agency acknowledged that they had been unable to trace most of Mr A's papers. They visited him to reconstruct the events of the claim and awarded him arrears of income support. The Benefits Agency also paid Mr A £72.07 as compensation for loss of use of the delayed arrears of income support, and £100 for the inconvenience caused him as a result of both the failure to reply to correspondence and the loss of documents relating to the claim.

Case No: C.1686/00
Benefits Agency: poor handling of an appeal request against a decision to refuse a funeral payment from the social fund

In March 1998 Mrs B appealed against the Benefits Agency's decision to refuse her claim for a funeral payment from the social fund. In December 1998 she resubmitted her appeal request when the Benefits Agency told her that they did not have any papers relating to her appeal. Despite her, her husband's and the Member's enquiries about the progress of her appeal, it took the Benefits Agency two years, and the Ombudsman's intervention, to send the appeal submission to the Appeals Service. The Ombudsman criticised the Benefits Agency for their poor handling of Mrs B's case and the consequent delays. The Benefits Agency apologised to Mrs B for the poor service she had received and awarded her £75 for the gross inconvenience caused.

Case No: C.1747/00
Benefits Agency: delay in recovering an overpayment

Following a decision by an independent tribunal that Mr D had a recoverable overpayment of £467.20 Mr D asked for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioners. In the meantime the Benefits Agency suspended their action to recover the overpayment. Mr D later withdrew his application to the Commissioners but the Benefits Agency failed to take any further action to recover the overpayment for four years. They later recovered the overpayment in full. The Ombudsman found that the Benefits Agency's delay in recovering the overpayment was maladministrative but had not caused Mr D to suffer injustice. The Ombudsman also found that Mr D had not suffered gross inconvenience as a result of the Benefits Agency's maladministration. The Benefits Agency apologised to Mr D for their poor handling of his overpayment.

Case No: C.1915/00
Benefits Agency: assignment of incorrect National Insurance number

Following the death of her husband, Mrs J approached the Benefits Agency to claim widow's benefit. The Benefits Agency mistakenly assigned her the National Insurance number of another Mrs J. The Benefits Agency wrote to Mrs J about benefits she did not receive and asked about a change of address that had not taken place. The Benefits Agency took no remedial action despite Mrs J drawing the matter to their attention. They later sent Mrs J an order book addressed to her namesake. It was only after the intervention of both Mrs Js that the Benefits Agency took remedial action and gave Mrs J (the complainant) the correct National Insurance number. Following the Ombudsman's intervention the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency apologised to Mrs J and the Benefits Agency made her a payment of £200 in respect of the gross inconvenience and distress they had caused her at a sensitive time.

Case No: C.39/01
Benefits Agency: sudden withdrawal of widowed mother's allowance

In early September 1999 the Benefits Agency told Mrs B in writing that her widowed mother's allowance would increase slightly to £145.95 a week from 28 September. That was a mistake: her benefit should have stopped altogether from that date. Mrs B did not find out about the error until 11 November when she learned from her bank statement that no payments had reached her account. Following the Ombudsman's investigation the Benefits Agency awarded Mrs B a special payment of £227.30: £200 for distress and inconvenience, and £27.30 for out of pocket expenses.

Case No: C.1198/99
Child Support Agency: delay and failure to take enforcement action to collect child support maintenance and arrears

The Ombudsman found that the Child Support Agency (CSA) took three and a half years to make a maintenance assessment in Miss H's case and then acted only as a result of her prompting. The non-resident parent ceased to pay maintenance after a mere four months, but CSA dragged their feet on enforcement action. A much-reduced assessment was made in February 1998 but was found on appeal to have been wrongly based. Enforcement action was further delayed by CSA's slow action on the appeal and on a periodic review. CSA made consolatory payments totalling £250 to Miss H plus £30 towards her expenses in pressing her case. They also agreed to consider an advance payment of the arrears due to her, with interest on their loss of use, once the non-resident parent had established a six month pattern of regular maintenance payments.

Case No: C.1237/99
Child Support Agency: failure to collect the full amount of child support maintenance due over a period in excess of five years

The Child Support Agency (CSA) mishandled Mrs E's child support maintenance application with the result that they failed, over a period in excess of five years, to collect the full amount of maintenance due to her. After the Ombudsman's intervention CSA made Mrs E an advance payment of maintenance arrears of £6,103.32 together with £880.42 in interest on that sum. They also made Mrs E a special payment of £200 in recognition of the inconvenience to which she had been put, as well as paying her £25 towards the expenses she had incurred in pursuing her case.

Case No: C.1314/99
Child Support Agency: poor handling

Mrs G made an application for child support maintenance for her two children in May 1993. The Child Support Agency (CSA) failed to make a maintenance assessment for Mrs G's eldest child before he ceased to be a qualifying child in May 1996.

CSA made a series of errors and omissions in their attempts to obtain child support maintenance for Mrs G's second child. After a reasonable start, CSA were slow to contact the non-resident parent, their enquiries were muddled and when they obtained the information they needed they did not always use it to good effect. CSA made a defective interim maintenance assessment, losing Mrs G an opportunity to obtain child support maintenance for a period of 15 months. They failed to keep Mrs G properly informed of progress and their failure to give proper explanations exacerbated the frustration caused by their poor handling of her case. CSA later missed opportunities to have deductions made from the non-resident parent's social security benefit payments and to take effective enforcement action when he regained employment. CSA were also slow to review Mrs G's child support maintenance when she reported changes of circumstances, they failed to complete the necessary action on a periodic review and they mishandled her request for an office interview.

CSA were slow to deal with her request for financial redress, even after the intervention of the Chief Executive. They gave poor and misleading explanations about that redress to the Member. CSA were unable to explain the rationale behind their payment of compensation of £554.68 (with interest of £103.97) and £3,010.23 (with interest of £561.05). In addition to those payments CSA gave Mrs G consolatory payments totalling £500 together with £40 for her out-of-pocket expenses, apologised for their poor handling of her case and agreed to consider further compensation payments if the conditions for those payments were met in the future.

Case No: C.1431/99
Child Support Agency: mishandling of an application for child support maintenance resulting in financial loss

Mrs S applied for child support maintenance in June 1993 but it was not until January 2000 that the Child Support Agency's (CSA's) involvement resulted in the start of regular payments - by then of arrears only - by the non-resident parent, Mr P. Some of that delay was due to Mr P's lack of co-operation and the added difficulty posed by his self-employed status; but CSA's performance fell well short of an acceptable standard. There were long periods of inaction coupled with a generally lacklustre effort. To make matters worse CSA made a serious mistake in incorrectly cancelling an interim maintenance assessment leaving Mrs S with no entitlement to child support maintenance for a period of 18 months between July 1994 and January 1996. CSA agreed in principle to compensate her for that loss but they took too long to reach the position where they were able to decide on the appropriate amount. After the Ombudsman's intervention they made Mrs S a compensation payment of £1,165.74 plus £249.29 interest on that sum. They also made her an advance lump sum payment of child support maintenance arrears totalling £1,380.82 plus £241.15 interest; and reimbursed out of pocket expenses of £30. Those payments were in addition to a £250 consolatory payment made before the Ombudsman's intervention. The Chief Executive apologised personally to Mrs S.

Case No: C.1509/99
Child Support Agency: errors and delays in handling an application for child support maintenance

The Ombudsman found that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had allowed a succession of errors and avoidable delays in their handling of Mrs D's application for child support maintenance. In 1993 they imposed an interim maintenance assessment with an effective date which they identified as incorrect in November 1994 but did not replace with a second assessment until December 1995. CSA then failed to give Mrs D an explanation or apology for the fact that her entitlement to maintenance under the defective first interim maintenance assessment was not enforceable. The second interim maintenance assessment was calculated for an incorrect amount, which meant that the liability order which CSA obtained in May 1996 was also for an incorrect amount. The need to obtain a liability order for the correct amount delayed further enforcement action until February 1998, when CSA applied for a garnishee order against a building society where the non-resident parent was thought to have an account rather than against the bank account whose number Mrs D had provided to CSA. The garnishee action failed. CSA also repeatedly failed to look into the possibility of obtaining deductions for Mrs D from an army pension which the non-resident parent received. Following the Ombudsman's intervention CSA obtained sufficient information to calculate maintenance assessments which were made to cover periods from 24 October 1993 (using the incorrect date of the interim maintenance assessment) to 16 March 2000 and a current assessment for the period from 17 March. CSA decided to pay Mrs D £1,567 in compensation for lost entitlement to child support maintenance and £371.43 interest on that sum; an advance payment of £7,027.36 for accrued arrears and interest of £1,012.43 on that sum; £250 for the inconvenience she had suffered and £30 for telephone and postage costs.

Case No: C.1547/99
Child Support Agency: failure to secure maintenance and to take enforcement action

Mrs B applied for child support maintenance in June 1993 but the Child Support Agency (CSA) failed to send a maintenance enquiry form to the non-resident parent until January 1994. The non-resident parent did not respond and CSA made an interim maintenance assessment effective from May 1994. CSA took little action and then in April 1995 they found that the assessment was invalid because the effective date was wrong. CSA made a fresh interim maintenance assessment effective from February 1995 and obtained a liability order but by that time the non-resident parent was unemployed. The non-resident parent resumed work in July 1996 but CSA took no enforcement action, and then in May 1997 suspended his arrears. CSA refused to make an advance lump sum payment of arrears to Mrs B as the non-resident parent had not co-operated with them. As a result of the Ombudsman's intervention CSA have paid Mrs B £201.13 to compensate her for the financial loss she suffered due to the late issue of the maintenance enquiry form, £181.06 for the loss she suffered because they failed to collect a contribution to maintenance from the non-resident parent's benefit, a consolatory payment of £100 for gross inconvenience and £20 costs.

Case No: C.10/00
Child Support Agency: mishandling of an application for child support maintenance. Benefits Agency: alleged failure to investigate allegations of a false claim to jobseeker's allowance

In 1993 Mrs P applied to the Child Support Agency (CSA) for child support maintenance. CSA made an interim maintenance assessment followed by a number of full maintenance assessments. CSA mismanaged the enforcement of child support maintenance payments by the non-resident parent with the result that Mrs P received maintenance much later than she should have done. In November 1996 the non-resident parent was awarded jobseeker's allowance for the period 18 November to 16 December as a result of which CSA made a nil maintenance assessment. Mrs P provided CSA and the Benefits Agency with what she contended was evidence that the non-resident parent had fraudulently claimed benefit but the Benefits Agency decided not to investigate fully those allegations as they deemed it not cost effective to do so, given that the amount of benefit involved was small and had accrued over a short period of time. The Ombudsman found that that decision was a reasonable one. Following the Ombudsman's decision to investigate Mrs P's complaint the Benefits Agency carried out an investigation into Mrs P's allegations. The Ombudsman found that that investigation had been carried out satisfactorily and that the conclusions reached were reasonable given the circumstances of the case. CSA made a lump sum payment of child support maintenance of £5,715.36 to Mrs P together with £1,140.87 by way of interest. Following further representations from the Ombudsman's staff CSA agreed to make a further lump sum payment of £2,328.60 and to pay interest on that sum. CSA also agreed to pay Mrs P £170 in respect of gross inconvenience and out-of-pocket expenses.

Case No: C.257/00
Child Support Agency and Appeals Service: delays and errors in handling of child support maintenance and an appeal

The Child Support Agency (CSA) took over a year to make a maintenance assessment despite receiving the full co-operation of Mr M. By then arrears of over £3,000 in child support maintenance had accrued. Mr M then contended, in March 1997, that his daughter had stopped attending full-time education. CSA made incomplete enquiries before deciding that liability to child support maintenance remained. They also imposed a deduction from earnings order to collect regular maintenance and arrears. Meanwhile Mr M appealed against the maintenance assessment but the tribunal's papers for the first, adjourned appeal in August 1997 were lost. Amid mounting financial problems Mr M resigned his job in early 1998 claiming that departmental maladministration had forced that. Eventually in February 1999 the tribunal allowed the appeal based on evidence from a college which CSA could have obtained in spring 1997. Thereafter CSA refunded to Mr M the child support maintenance he had overpaid, and compensated him for the loss of use of that money. The Independent Tribunal Service (now the Appeals Service) offered him a consolatory payment of £150 for their mistakes and also offered to meet certain legal expenses. The Ombudsman did not uphold Mr M's claim for lost earnings but after his involvement CSA agreed to meet other legal costs and to pay compensation of £300 for worry and distress and gross inconvenience. Compensation of £1,254.50 was offered to Mr M.

Case No: C.397/00
Child Support Agency: failure to make maintenance assessment and delayed enforcement action

The Child Support Agency (CSA) delayed by a month the issue of a maintenance enquiry form to the non-resident parent of Miss K's daughter. CSA eventually made a full maintenance assessment, but from an interim effective date. They were unable to backdate the assessment further because they had conflicting information about the non-resident parent's employment status and no information about his earnings. CSA's attempts to obtain the necessary information were sporadic and unfocused. The non-resident parent failed to meet his liability and CSA imposed a deduction from earnings order. The Ombudsman found that they could have done so from an earlier date. CSA also failed to take effective action when the non-resident parent's employer failed to pass on the deductions. However, the Ombudsman did not uphold Miss K's complaint that CSA had not told her why they had been unable to make a compensatory payment to her. After the Ombudsman had intervened, CSA made consolatory payments to Miss K totalling £150 plus £10 costs. They made full backdated maintenance assessments and agreed to offer Miss K a lump sum advance of £1,676.89 against the arrears that had accrued. They agreed to consider further compensation for the delay in issuing the maintenance enquiry form and said that they were reviewing their policy about compensation for loss of use of money when arrears were paid late by non-resident parents because of the Agency's shortcomings.

Case No: C.569/00
Child Support Agency: poor handling of a charging order to enforce payment of maintenance

Mrs C complained that solicitors in the Department of Social Security had been negligent in advising the Child Support Agency (CSA) that it was not necessary for them to apply to the Land Registry for a caution against Mr X's property. Mrs C complained that Mr X subsequently sold the property and that that would not have happened had CSA been properly advised. The Ombudsman did not uphold Mrs C's complaint: the solicitors gave appropriate advice in advising CSA to register the charging order as a notice against the property rather than a caution. However, the Ombudsman discovered that both CSA and their solicitors had failed to recognise that the court had mistakenly granted a charging order against the wrong property. It was that mistake which led to Mr X being able to sell his house unencumbered. The Ombudsman found that CSA and their solicitors should have noticed the error and CSA could have had the error amended by the court in time to stop Mr X selling the property. He also found that CSA repeatedly failed to tell Mrs C the true reason for the failure of the charging order despite being in full possession of the facts. After her difficulties with CSA Mrs C accepted a cash settlement from Mr X in respect of his arrears. That agreement required her to forego £3,000.17 of arrears. In recognition of their errors in handling Mrs C's case CSA agreed to pay that money to her. They also paid £156.60 to her for loss of use of sums which may have been made available to her had the charging order not failed. Finally they made her a consolatory payment of £150 in respect of gross inconvenience and compensation of £20 for the expenses she had incurred.

Case No: C.645/00
Child Support Agency: delays in carrying out reviews and deferral of resultant arrears, causing stress and financial hardship

The Child Support Agency (CSA) delayed a periodic review of Mr W's case by six months and then failed to implement that review for a further six months, by which time he had accrued arrears of £2,123.32. CSA also failed to take into account two changes of circumstances which Mr W had reported to them. When they finally took those changes into account they based their assessments on incorrect information. CSA delayed a second periodic review, due in April 1997, causing a further £3,446.48 of arrears to accrue to Mr W's account. CSA agreed, in January 1999, to consider deferring part of those arrears but did not do so until September 1999, when they agreed to defer £2,543.03 of Mr W's arrears arising from the late periodic review effective from April 1997. In November 1999 CSA corrected a number of errors they had identified in Mr W's case and increased his arrears by £910.38. They said they could not defer any of those additional arrears. After the intervention of the Ombudsman's staff, CSA corrected a further error they had made in Mr W's assessments and agreed to defer a total of £4,356.82 of his arrears. The Chief Executive apologised to Mr W and CSA made him a consolatory payment of £100. They also agreed to consider an additional consolatory payment if Mr W provided evidence of the stress he had suffered.

Case No: C.658/00
Child Support Agency: omissions and delays caused substantial arrears which the Child Support Agency refused to defer despite the Independent Case Examiner's recommendation that they do so

Mr X's child support maintenance liability was modified for one year, but the Child Support Agency (CSA) then failed to revise it, continued to send him notifications quoting the modified rate and carried out the periodical review two years late. By that time considerable arrears had arisen. The Independent Case Examiner's report found maladministration on the part of CSA and recommended deferment but the Agency took a total of eight months to consider the matter. The Ombudsman's investigation confirmed the Independent Case Examiner's findings. CSA eventually deferred arrears of £1,468.03 and refunded the sum of £314.64 which Mr X had paid during the time they took to make their decision. They also paid him £14.11 compensation for loss of use of the money.

Case No: C.700/00
Child Support Agency: mishandling of an application for child support maintenance

Mrs L complained that the Child Support Agency (CSA) continued to mishandle her application for child support maintenance, despite the intervention of the Independent Case Examiner. CSA mismanaged the enforcement of child support maintenance with the result that it was nearly seven years before Mrs L obtained child support maintenance. CSA accepted that they had failed to progress the case effectively and that the poor service identified in the Independent Case Examiner's report had not improved as it should have done. CSA made a lump sum payment of £3,995.78 to Mrs L together with £812.92 by way of interest, making £4,808.70 in all. They also made an ex gratia payment of £260 in respect of gross inconvenience and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of Mrs L's complaint to the Independent Case Examiner. The Chief Executive apologised for CSA's failings.

Case No: C.753/00
Child Support Agency: consistent mishandling in assessing and enforcing a non-resident parent's liability to pay maintenance

Mr K was at the time of the complaint the non-resident parent of two children. The Child Support Agency (CSA) sought to assess his liability to pay maintenance when the then parent with care was in receipt of prescribed benefits. CSA failed to explain their jurisdiction fully to Mr K and wrongly imposed an interim maintenance assessment against him. They then delayed for over 18 months before assessing his maintenance liability. They wrongly imposed a deduction from earnings order, overcharged him maintenance and generally mishandled his case. CSA repaid Mr K £393.54 in overpaid maintenance and made the following ex gratia payments in respect of their errors: £250 for gross inconvenience; £50 for expenses incurred contacting the Agency; £7 for expenses incurred by a wrongly imposed deduction from earnings order; £60 for the loss of annual leave when he took time off work to meet CSA staff; £50 for gross embarrassment caused by imposing a deduction from earnings order; £50 for gross embarrassment caused by wrongly addressing a deduction from earnings order; and £100 for the gross embarrassment caused by incorrectly imposing an interim maintenance assessment and mishandling the deduction from earnings order. Mr K also claimed that he should be compensated for the two days annual leave he took to attend appeal tribunals. Although the Ombudsman found some shortcomings in the way CSA dealt with that claim, he was satisfied that CSA's decision not to award compensation for those costs was reasonable. The Ombudsman found CSA's remedial action to be an appropriate remedy for a fully justified complaint.

Case No: C.767/00
Child Support Agency: alleged delays leading to loss of tax relief

Mr B complained of errors and delays by the Child Support Agency (CSA) in handling his maintenance assessment whereby they initially held him responsible for large arrears of child support maintenance that had accrued during the long period of time it took to make a maintenance assessment. Eventually CSA agreed to defer a substantial part of the arrears. After the Ombudsman's involvement CSA refunded overpayments of child support maintenance, with compensation for loss of use. They also paid Mr B £100 for gross inconvenience and £15 for out of pocket expenses. The Ombudsman was fully satisfied that Mr B had not suffered financial loss as a result of the Inland Revenue's refusal to allow tax relief for the tax years 1995/96 and 1996/97. On the contrary, had CSA acted efficiently, enabling applications for tax relief to be considered, Mr B would not have qualified for any deferment of child support maintenance.

Case No: C.773/00
Child Support Agency: inefficiency and delay in obtaining maintenance

The Ombudsman found that the Child Support Agency (CSA) mishandled Mr C's case. CSA received Mr C's application for child maintenance in November 1995 but lost the papers and did not make an assessment until February 1997. When the non-resident parent failed to make regular payments CSA were slow to implement effective measures to secure payment and as a consequence Mr C has only received four payments of maintenance. Following the Ombudsman's intervention CSA made Mr C a consolatory payment of £250 in recognition of their poor handling of the case and £30 to cover Mr C's telephone and postage costs.

Case No: C.825/00
Child Support Agency: delays and failure to take account of payments received and to close the case when the non-resident parent became the parent with care

The Ombudsman upheld Mr X's complaint that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had allowed a delay of eight months in making a maintenance assessment while he had been the non-resident parent of his three children. Mr X sent CSA nine payments of regular child support maintenance and contributions towards arrears but they only registered four of them. He then told CSA that the children had come to live with him and he wished the case to be closed. Even though that was shortly afterwards confirmed by the children's mother, CSA failed to note the change for three years. CSA asked Mr X to pay arrears of £1,843.28, most of which had arisen during the period before the maintenance assessment was made. As they had no records of the payments he had made they required him to provide proof from his bank. Mr X sent CSA the evidence they had asked for but they then waited six months before recalculating the arrears he owed. They also failed for over a year to reach a decision on his request for part of his arrears to be deferred. They required him to pay instalments towards the arrears without taking into consideration the welfare of the qualifying children for whom he was then the parent with care. Following the Ombudsman's intervention, CSA decided to pay Mr X £150 compensation for the gross inconvenience he had suffered. The Chief Executive apologised for the poor service he had received and, at the Ombudsman's request, CSA decided to suspend indefinitely the collection of Mr X's arrears.

Case No: C.830/00
Child Support Agency: failure to make a full maintenance assessment over a period in excess of five years

The Child Support Agency (CSA) mishandled Mrs S's child support maintenance application with the result that they failed, over a period in excess of five years, to make a full maintenance assessment and collect maintenance on her behalf. CSA made a payment of £287.83 to Mrs S to compensate her for the delay in sending a maintenance enquiry form to the non-resident parent, together with a consolatory payment of £100 for the gross inconvenience she had suffered. After the Ombudsman's intervention CSA agreed to make Mrs S a lump sum payment of half of the outstanding arrears amounting to £1,401.82 and to pay interest on that sum. The Chief Executive apologised for CSA's failings.

Case No: C.833/00
Child Support Agency: errors and delay including delay by the Independent Case Examiner in investigating the complaint

The Ombudsman found that the Child Support Agency (CSA) delayed carrying out two periodic reviews on Mr F's case, the second of which resulted in the accrual of arrears amounting to nearly £2,000. CSA then also delayed following up various representations which Mr F made about his ex-wife's circumstances and the shared care of his son. CSA made careless errors in correspondence both with him and his Member of Parliament. Mr F was dissatisfied with CSA's response to his complaints about their handling of his case, but when he referred the matter to the Independent Case Examiner they delayed a year before beginning their investigation. The Chief Executive of CSA and the Independent Case Examiner apologised to Mr F and to the Member. CSA deferred the outstanding arrears on the case and awarded Mr F compensation of £115, comprising £100 for gross inconvenience and £15 for the additional expenses he had incurred. They also agreed to consider compensating him for stress should he supply relevant medical evidence.

Case No: C.875/00
Child Support Agency: failure to consider property settlement and failure to carry out a review

The Ombudsman upheld Mr J's complaint that the Child Support Agency (CSA) did not consider the information he had provided about a property settlement when making an initial maintenance assessment in January 1996. His request for a review of that assessment was overlooked for several months. In the meantime CSA imposed a deduction from earnings order. CSA subsequently carried out the review and awarded a property settlement allowance (later replaced by a departure assessment.) As a result of all that Mr J was found to have overpaid £1,307.09 in child support maintenance. CSA refunded the overpayment and paid interest for loss of its use. CSA made other handling errors, in particular sending Mr J confusing and apparently conflicting assessment notifications and quoting Mr J's son's surname wrongly. CSA made Mr J two consolatory payments totalling £200 for gross inconvenience and reimbursed certain of his out of pocket expenses. CSA also agreed to consider a further consolatory payment for damage to health, subject to the provision of objective evidence. The Chief Executive apologised for CSA's failings.

Case No: C.876/00
Child Support Agency: compensation for arrears arising as the result of failure to carry out periodic reviews on time

The Child Support Agency (CSA) failed to carry out periodic reviews of Mrs J's maintenance assessment, which were due in October 1994 and April 1997, until November 1999. The Ombudsman found that CSA had handled their correspondence with Mrs J badly, had made inept requests for verification of maintenance payments she had received directly from the non-resident parent, and had calculated the arrears due inaccurately. CSA deferred the arrears owed by the non-resident parent. They offered Mrs J an advance lump sum payment in respect of the arrears, but had to withdraw the offer when they found that they had not taken into account the full period when she had been in receipt of family credit. They then made her an early payment of £2,140.17 as compensation for the deferred arrears, having reduced the full amount of the arrears due by fifty per cent to take account of the family credit Mrs J had received. The Ombudsman's staff estimated that that reflected fairly the amount of family credit actually received by Mrs J. CSA also paid Mrs J £650 for gross inconvenience and severe distress, £20 for out of pocket expenses and, on the Ombudsman's request, £352.32 for loss of use of the arrears.

Case No: C.894/00
Child Support Agency: delays and errors including failure to consider guidance on backdating changes of circumstances which occurred during the initial payment period

The Child Support Agency (CSA) delayed for 18 months notifying Mr E, the non-resident parent, of his child support maintenance liability. When Mr E asked for a review of the assessment because his circumstances had changed during that period, CSA refused saying that they could only take account of the changes from the date he told the Agency about them. The Ombudsman found that CSA had not considered their guidance which suggested that, in circumstances such as Mr E's, a retrospective review might be appropriate. The Ombudsman also found that CSA failed to tell Mr E of his right to appeal against their refusal to review his assessment. Following the Ombudsman's intervention CSA reviewed Mr E's child support liability and decided that Mr E was owed a refund of £1,445.97 with interest. The Chief Executive apologised for the service Mr E had received and CSA made a consolatory award of £100 for the inconvenience caused and paid £10 for out of pocket expenses.

Case No: C.898/00
Child Support Agency: delays and errors in dealing with reviews of a non-resident parent's child support maintenance assessment

The Ombudsman identified a number of shortcomings in the way the Child Support Agency (CSA) had handled Mr G's case and upheld his complaint. The Ombudsman found that CSA had been slow to carry out a change of circumstances review when Mr G became employed in late 1996. That delay caused substantial arrears to accrue which Mr G had little or no prospect of being able to clear promptly. The Ombudsman also identified delays carrying out subsequent change of circumstances reviews, and in dealing with Mr G's application for a departure from the standard child maintenance assessment formula. Those further delays were compounded by numerous errors in the assessment calculations which resulted in assessments having to be recalculated and frequent change in the amount Mr G was asked to pay. As a result CSA calculated that Mr G had overpaid by £493.10. The Ombudsman's investigation also highlighted shortcomings in CSA's handling of correspondence from Mr G and from the local Citizens' Advice Bureau acting on his behalf. CSA had already acknowledged that they had not served Mr G well and, prior to the Ombudsman's intervention, had decided to defer arrears of £989.65, and make a consolatory payment of £75 to Mr G for the gross inconvenience he had suffered, together with £25 towards his out-of-pocket expenses. Following the Ombudsman's intervention CSA awarded Mr G an additional consolatory payment of £75. They also agreed to consider paying interest on the overpayment of maintenance. CSA also undertook to complete a further account breakdown to ensure that Mr G's accounts were correct. The Chief Executive apologised for CSA's failings.

Case No: C.990/00
Child Support Agency: delay in implementing the deferred debt scheme, delays in completing reviews, errors in reconciling maintenance accounts following overpayments of maintenance, and delay in providing compensation

Mr H first complained to the Ombudsman about the Child Support Agency (CSA) in 1996 and the Ombudsman upheld his complaint in February 1998. Arrears of maintenance totalling £800.16 were deferred under the Agency's deferred debt scheme following representations by the Ombudsman's staff. Mr H subsequently complained about further delays by CSA in reviewing his maintenance liability, as a result of which he had paid too much maintenance. CSA refunded £881.40, but only after calculating the overpayment wrongly, and initially seeking to offset it against the deferred debt. CSA later paid £168.91 by way of compensation for financial loss, £50 for gross inconvenience, and £10 for out of pocket expenses. Following the Ombudsman's intervention CSA realised that another review was overdue and calculated that a further overpayment of £474.03 had arisen, which they refunded to Mr H. They also paid him £10.86 compensation for consequential financial loss. At the Ombudsman's request, Mr H's accounts were re-checked in April 2000, revealing a further net overpayment of £88.33.

Case No: C.1127/00
Child Support Agency: incorrect treatment of a case where a court order was in force, and where the parent with care ceased to receive a prescribed benefit

The Child Support Agency (CSA) failed to clarify at the outset the status of payments made by the non-resident parent to Ms P. It later transpired that those payments were made under a court order for child maintenance. CSA subsequently made a defective interim maintenance assessment. They initially failed to realise that that interim maintenance assessment was defective and later failed to recognise that the assessment, defective or not, superseded the court order. They also failed to recognise that the cessation of a prescribed benefit did not, of itself, put Ms P outwith their jurisdiction. After asking CSA to close her case Ms P asked them to act for her again. CSA resumed action on her case without obtaining a properly signed application. They failed to notice the absence of a valid application for 19 months, thereby losing her an opportunity to obtain child support maintenance. All of those failures meant that the Agency missed opportunities to obtain information about the non-resident parent's financial situation when it might have been possible to do so. Because of the non-resident parent's lack of co-operation CSA made several interim maintenance assessments on Ms P's case. They failed to explain properly to her that such assessments would be superseded by any full maintenance assessments which they might later make for periods after 18 April 1995 and that it was unlikely that she would receive payment at the interim maintenance assessment rate for any prolonged period. That failure gave Ms P an unrealistic expectation of the amount of child support maintenance she might receive.

After the intervention of the Ombudsman, CSA agreed to increase Ms P's consolatory payment for gross inconvenience from £200 to £400 and agreed to consider any expenses she had reasonably incurred in pursuit of her complaint. The Ombudsman found insufficient evidence to justify asking CSA to compensate Ms P for lost child support maintenance over and above the child maintenance that the non-resident parent had already paid. The Agency told the Ombudsman that they had recently changed the letters they send telling parents with care about interim maintenance assessments to make it clearer that interim maintenance assessment rates cannot be relied on indefinitely.

Case No: C.1130/00
Child Support Agency: significant delay in making maintenance assessments

The Ombudsman upheld Mrs T's complaint that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had taken too long to make maintenance assessments in her case. The delay was in the order of six years. CSA took very little action for three years, then they had some trouble tracing the non-resident parent, Mr W, even though Mrs T had provided his address and other information. CSA wrote to Mr W and confirmed his address, but they then decided that they did not have a confident address for him and temporarily suspended action on Mrs T's case. By the time CSA had gathered enough information on which to make a series of maintenance assessments, Mr W was unemployed and not in a position to clear the substantial arrears of child support maintenance that had accrued. CSA made ex gratia payments to Mrs T totalling £225, but they could not make a lump-sum advance payment to her because no arrears agreement existed between themselves and Mr W. CSA agreed to keep the case under regular review. The Ombudsman did not find that delays on the part of CSA's Independent Case Examiner had been due to maladministration.

Case No: C.1319/00
Child Support Agency and the Appeals Service: delay in hearing appeal

Mr K, a non-resident parent, appealed against a departure direction awarded to the parent with care in November 1997, but the appeal was not decided until nearly two years later. The Child Support Agency (CSA) failed to send their submission to the Appeals Service, and the Appeals Service failed to chase them for it until November 1998. Matters continued to proceed slowly and CSA sent their submission in February 1999. The appeal was decided in Mr K's favour in September 1999 which meant that he had overpaid CSA £3,446.11. This was refunded by the Agency. As a result of the Ombudsman's intervention an ex gratia payment of £488.96 was made to Mr K made up of payments for interest for loss of use of money, for gross inconvenience, and out-of-pocket expenses.

Case No: C.1334/00
Child Support Agency: alleged errors in addressing correspondence and delays causing arrears of child support maintenance to accrue

Mr F complained that he unfairly incurred substantial arrears of child support maintenance because the Child Support Agency (CSA) delayed carrying out a periodic review of his maintenance assessment. He also complained that he had not received letters because CSA had wrongly addressed them. The Ombudsman did not uphold the main complaints. Although there were delays in carrying out the periodic review CSA properly warned Mr F that he would pay a higher rate of maintenance when phasing arrangements came to an end. CSA made a number of other handling errors, however. After the Ombudsman's involvement CSA awarded Mr F £100 for distress and £30 for out of pocket expenses (having already awarded him £50 for gross inconvenience).

Case No: C.1363/00
Child Support Agency: mishandling of applications for child support maintenance

The Child Support Agency (CSA) failed to deal properly with Mrs X's application for child maintenance, which she had made over four years previously, and to make a maintenance assessment. They also failed to deal with her request for compensation. Mrs X said she suffered increasing emotional and financial strain as a result of CSA's failure to deal satisfactorily with her case. The Chief Executive apologised for the shortcomings identified. The Agency made consolatory payments totalling £200, recompensed £30 costs, and promised to consider further compensation should a maintenance assessment be made in the future. They offered to consider compensation for any stress-related illness shown to have been directly caused by the maladministration identified.

Case No: C.119/01

Child Support Agency: alleged failure to follow enforcement procedures correctly

Mrs R gave the Child Support Agency (CSA) full information about her former husband's whereabouts but correspondence that they sent him, including a reminder to complete a maintenance enquiry form and a warning of the imposition of an interim maintenance assessment, was returned undelivered. Because a summons to attend a liability order hearing was also not successfully delivered, the hearing was postponed. Subsequent bailiffs' action yielded little because the non-resident parent had no property which could be distrained. The Ombudsman found that CSA had acted promptly on several occasions but that there had been some avoidable delays and a failure to keep Mrs R informed of developments. The CSA Chief Executive apologised for those shortcomings. However, the Ombudsman accepted that the failure to secure maintenance was primarily because of the non-resident parent's determination not to co-operate.

Case No: C.1691/00
Independent Case Examiner: alleged delay and misdirection and inappropriate handling of a compensation claim

Mrs X complained to the Independent Case Examiner in March 1999 that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had compensated her and her husband inadequately for their poor management of her husband's liability for child support maintenance. The Independent Case Examiner told Mrs X in July that the investigation of her case would not be completed within six months and suggested that she might ask her MP to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman, which seemed appropriate because the main issue concerned compensation on which the Ombudsman was not constrained by the CSA guidance. The Independent Case Examiner was aware that Mrs X was pursuing a case against CSA in the County Court under the Data Protection Act 1984; and her staff assured Mrs X that her case would remain with them for investigation until the Ombudsman made a decision. When Mrs X's case was referred to the Ombudsman he was not able to consider it because it concerned matters which were essentially the same as those before the County Court. Mrs X complained about excessive delay by the Independent Case Examiner, misdirection on the referral to the Ombudsman and that the compensation decision by CSA (advised by the Department of Social Security headquarters) impugned the Independent Case Examiner's independence. The Ombudsman did not uphold her complaints. He suggested, however, that as a matter of best practice, the Independent Case Examiner might have checked whether there was any obvious reason why the Ombudsman might not be able to look into Mrs X's case, and recommended reimbursing Mrs X's postage costs amounting to £22.56. The Independent Case Examiner did so, and has put in place a policy for handling future requests for compensation and consolatory payments.

Case No: C.560/00
War Pensions Agency: unnecessary delay in implementing a Pensions Appeal Tribunal decision and unwarranted refusal of compensation

In February 1997 Mr T won his appeals against the assessments of disablement from two medical conditions. The War Pensions Agency were initially notified of the outcome of only one of the appeals. Although that entitled Mr T to an increased gratuity, the War Pensions Agency did not implement the decision until they received confirmation of the other decision over a year later. They then refused Mr T compensation for the delay on the grounds that it had not been their fault. However, when Mr T's increased gratuity was eventually paid it was by reference to the 1997-98 rates, which gave him more money than he would have received if he had been paid at earlier years' rates plus interest. The Ombudsman criticised the War Pensions Agency for unwarranted delays and for shortcomings in dealing with Mr T's correspondence. The War Pensions Agency offered Mr T their apologies and agreed to make him a consolatory payment of £50 for gross inconvenience.

Previous < Contents > Next

Last updated: 4 April 2005