Home > Publications > Selected cases— Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations: April 2001 to September 2001 > Case No. C.875/01
Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations
PCA 6th Report – Session 2001-2002
Chapter 2
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE - WAR PENSIONS AGENCY
Mishandling of a claim for Allowance for Lowered Standard of Occupation
Mr C first claimed an allowance for lowered standard of occupation in October 1994. The War Pensions Agency (WPA) rejected the claim on the grounds that his war pensioned disablement did not prevent him from carrying out his pre-service occupation of hotel waiter. In September 1996 Mr C made a second claim saying that his regular pre-service occupation should be that of flight engineer. In April 1997 WPA decided that the regular occupation should continue unchanged and rejected the claim. In September 1997 WPA changed Mr C’s regular occupation to driver/air dispatcher but that did not result in an award of an allowance. Finally, in December 1998, WPA accepted flight engineer as Mr C’s pre-service occupation; but an allowance was again refused because WPA’s medical advice was that Mr C’s pensioned disablement did not prevent him from following that occupation. Mr C continued to press his case and in May 2000 WPA awarded an allowance backdated to 25 October 1994. They sent him arrears of £11,687.37 but refused to pay interest on them. After the Ombudsman’s intervention WPA accepted that the award had been delayed by their failure to obtain evidence of the medical requirements for a flight engineer and made Mr C an ex gratia payment of £644.20 in recognition of the loss of use of the arrears from December 1998 to May 2000. The Ombudsman found that the award had also been delayed by WPA’s failures during the period between December 1997 and December 1998; WPA made a further ex gratia payment of £393.76 in compensation for that. WPA agreed to consider reimbursement of Mr C’s expenses in pursuing his claim after December 1998 on production of the relevant evidence by Mr C. The acting Chief Executive apologised for WPA’s shortcomings.
Back to top
War Pensions Agency: resourcing of telephone helpline, issuing of information about legislative changes affecting hearing loss claims and discontinuation of pension entitlement
From 7 January 1993 legislative changes resulted in the application of more stringent rules for war pension claims concerning sensorineural hearing loss. In the run-up to that deadline, and following an article in a national newspaper, the War Pensions Agency’s telephone helpline (which had been expanded in anticipation of the change) was unable to cope with the number of callers. The Agency at first considered that, in the light of the problems with the helpline, concessions might be made on the date of receipt of claims. Later departmental legal advice confirmed that the Agency had no power to extend a deadline imposed by Parliament.
Although Mr C submitted his claim after the deadline, the Agency incorrectly considered it under the pre-7 January rules, which allowed the effect of his hearing loss to be combined with disablement from other conditions, and he was awarded a pension from 9 January 1993,.
In December 1997 the Agency noticed their earlier error and, in March 1998, notified him of the subsequent reduction in his assessment. That resulted in a payment of a gratuity rather than a regular pension.
The Ombudsman noted that the effect of the Agency’s mistake had been that Mr C received pension payments of over £8,000 to which he was not entitled. He found that the Agency could not reasonably have expanded the helpline, following the newspaper article, during the remaining three days before the change in legislation. Nor did he uphold Mr C’s complaint that his claim had been deliberately accepted under the pre-7 January rules. The Ombudsman concluded that the latter had arisen through simple human error.
The Agency apologised for their mishandling of Mr C’s case. Given the financial benefit to Mr C from the Agency’s error, the Ombudsman saw no grounds on which to seek further redress.
Previous < Contents > Next
Back to top
|
