Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - October 2000 to March 2001 - Case No. C.1348/00
Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - October 2000 to March 2001
Volume 4 - 2nd REPORT - SESSION 2001-2002
Chapter 2
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Case No: C.1348/00
Dissemination of information about new student support arrangements
Mr T complained that the Department for Education and Employment had failed to disseminate in a reasonable and effective manner details of the financial arrangements for students taking a gap year in 1997/98 before entering university. He contended that the Department for Education and Employment had relied on the media to disseminate the information, but that the press reports had all failed to mention a crucial piece of information (a cut-off date) and had accordingly misled students like his son into believing that they would all be exempt from the new arrangements. As a result they had decided on a course of action without full knowledge of the financial implications. Mr T had further complained that his representations on the matter had been poorly handled by the Department. The Ombudsman did not find that the Department for Education and Employment had been maladministrative in the way they had handled the dissemination of information about the change in the support arrangements for gap year students. He found that they had not relied solely on the press release, but had taken other steps to try to ensure that affected students were put in the picture. He did however criticise their handling of Mr T’s representations. The Permanent Secretary accepted the criticisms of both the content and tone of the responses to Mr T’s representations and asked the Ombudsman to convey his apologies to Mr T.
Back to top
Case No: C.1158 / 00
Employment Service: handling of an application under the Access to Work scheme
Miss J applied for help under the Access to Work scheme in July 1998 after hearing a promotional talk at a local hospital. After Miss J had undergone an ergonomic assessment, a disability employment adviser supported the application, but approval was restricted after discussion with a more senior officer. After the involvement of an Employment Service regional director an improved offer of help was made to Miss Jones. The Ombudsman did not uphold Miss J’s main complaint that the Employment Service staff had acted corruptly, and he found no fault with an internal investigation which had been conducted into Miss J’s complaint. The Ombudsman found some inadequacies of handling. The Chief Executive of the Employment Service agreed to review departmental instructions and the content of information packs about
Back to top
Case No: C.1308 / 00
Employment Service: handling of an application for help under the Access to Work scheme
In March 1998 Mr K asked the Employment Service to provide him with a camper van with toilet facilities to enable him to overcome disabilities in travelling to and from work. He saw an occupational health specialist, retained by the Employment Service, who at first appeared to support his application. In October 1998 the Employment Service headquarters indicated to Mr K’s Member of Parliament that they supported a local decision to refuse the request for a van – at a time when Mr K was still providing information to the local office. The Ombudsman found that there were errors and omissions in the letter to the Member and that the local office had failed to keep Mr K properly informed about the purpose of continuing their medical enquiries. He also criticised delays on the part of the Employment Service, but saw no evidence suggesting that they had pressurised the health specialist to modify her recommendations. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention the Employment Service agreed to award £500 to Mr K for the frustration, annoyance and distress caused to him.
Back to top
Case No: C.1403 / 00
Employment Service: maladministration leading to the loss of jobseeker’s allowance
Mrs X visited the Employment Service on 9 April 1996 in order to claim unemployment benefit. She declared that she was unavailable for Saturday work. The Employment Service disallowed Mrs X’s claim for Saturdays, including 6 April 1996. She immediately made a fresh claim and declared herself available for Saturday work. The Employment Service lifted the sanction but not retrospectively. Jobseeker’s allowance replaced unemployment benefit in October 1996. As Mrs X had not been paid unemployment benefit for 6 April she was not covered by the transitional protection arrangements. Her entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance was therefore restricted to a maximum of 156 days, less the days for which unemployment benefit had already been paid. Benefit payments stopped on 10 October. The Ombudsman found that the Employment Service had not ensured that Mrs X was aware of the short term and long term implications of not being available for Saturday work. Consequently Mrs X had acted to her detriment and had forgone six months’ worth of jobseeker’s allowance. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention the Employment Service awarded Mrs X a payment of £1,465.72 as compensation for the benefit forgone.
Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
|
