Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - April - September 1999 > Summaries of other investigations completed
Summaries of other investigations completed
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
Case No. C.804/97
Misleading information provided about the milk quota conversion scheme
Messrs X complained that in 1992 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) had misled them into believing that it would be advantageous for them permanently to convert their wholesale milk quota to direct sales quota with a view to enhancing the butterfat base of their wholesale quota. The Ombudsman found no evidence that Messrs X had sought, or been given, such advice from MAFF about the milk quota conversion scheme. Messrs X also contended that a subsequent change to the legislation covering milk quota conversion, which removed the possibility of gaining a higher butterfat base where a producer's marketing requirements had never changed, had been retrospective, and that MAFF had failed to tell them about that change in time for them to take action to reduce their milk production and potential liability for levy. The Ombudsman found that on 25 November 1993 the European Commission had clarified rather than changed the legislation covering the milk quota conversion scheme. MAFF had responded swiftly to that situation and had arranged for the Milk Marketing Board to distribute leaflets to every milk producer in the UK during December 1993. That action, together with MAFF's decision to extend the deadline for leasing-in of quota, had offered producers the opportunity to mitigate their liability for levy. The Ombudsman found that the information supplied to milk producers on the qualifying conditions for participation in the quota conversion scheme was adequate and clear; and that but for their own actions in seeking to take advantage of what they had seen as a loophole in the scheme, Messrs X would not have been liable for the levy later imposed on them. The Ombudsman did not uphold the complaint.
Back to top
Case No. C.100/99
Alleged failure to prevent undue delays in access to the Over Thirty Month (Slaughter) Scheme
Mr A wished to enter some cattle for slaughter under the Over Thirty Month (Slaughter) Scheme, a European Community co-financed compensation scheme which was operated by the Intervention Board (IB), but was unable to do so for several months, by which time the rate of compensation payable under the scheme had reduced substantially. The Ombudsman found that, insofar as the delay had been part of a problem suffered by farmers generally as a result of a backlog of cattle awaiting entry to the scheme, that was not attributable to maladministration by IB because the backlog had not been of their making and they had taken reasonable steps to remove it within an acceptable time. Insofar as the delay had been an exceptional one, that was a matter between Mr A and the abattoir concerned; it had not been incumbent upon IB at that time to have had in place a system for resolving such difficulties. Mr A's financial disadvantage could not be attributed to maladministration by IB; accordingly the Ombudsman did not uphold the complaint.
Back to top
Case No. C.1286/97
Meat Hygiene Service: assessment of veterinary services
Mr X complained that the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) had failed to compensate his abattoir business for overcharging for veterinary attendance in the three months following MHS's establishment in April 1995. The Ombudsman found reasonable both the consultation process undertaken by MHS prior to April 1995 and the resultant decision to set a veterinary attendance level of 15 hours a week at Mr X's plant. After Mr X had made representations about what he saw as an unnecessarily high level of attendance, MHS reviewed the situation at his plant and on 15 May 1995 MHS's then Head of Operations agreed that the veterinary attendance should be reduced to five hours a week. That decision took five weeks to implement; in the absence of any evidence of the reasons for that delay, other than the pressure under which MHS had been operating, the Ombudsman found that unreasonable. MHS agreed to refund two weeks veterinary attendance fees with interest and to examine other cases which might be similarly affected.
Back to top
HM CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Case No. C.926/95 Alleged wrongful procedures by Customs officers in carrying out a strip search at an airport
Mr M complained that, having cut short a holiday abroad because of his illness, he was the subject of oppressive behaviour by Customs officers who carried out a strip search of his person. He challenged the period of time Customs said that he had been detained; and complained that there had been no proper authority for the search, nor any explanation of his appeal rights. The Ombudsman did not uphold some aspects of Mr M's complaint but found that he had been subjected to an abusive remark or remarks, that his rights had not been communicated as effectively as they should have been and that his obvious protestations at the time had not been taken up as a complaint. Customs made a consolatory payment of £250, to include out of pocket expenses, and the Chairman offered her personal apologies for Customs' shortcomings.
Back to top
COMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS
Case No. C.1069/99
Alleged misleading of a complainant
Although the Commission for the New Towns used a potentially misleading technical term to indicate the revised position of a new dwelling being built next to Mr M's home, they gave him sufficient other information to enable him to know its exact location. Accordingly the Ombudsman did not uphold Mr M's complaint that he had been misled.
Back to top
CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY
Case No. C.1390/99
Alleged maladministration in deciding claims for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
In January 1997 Mr and Mrs A claimed criminal injuries compensation for psychological injuries following a robbery. In June 1998 they submitted a consultant psychiatrist's report commissioned through their solicitors which supported their claim. In October the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority awarded compensation which was less than that normally warranted by the injuries as described in the consultant's report. The solicitors alleged that the Authority had told them that it was the Authority's policy to disregard the contents of reports commissioned by solicitors. The Chief Executive of the Authority agreed that such a policy would be wrong and apologised if the solicitors had been given the impression that the Authority were operating such a policy. He undertook to issue an interpretation to staff making clear that when dealing with applications they should take account of medical reports commissioned by or on behalf of applicants.
Back to top
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
(For a case involving the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency, see C.659/98, page 189)
Case No. C.103/99
Delay and confusion in giving advice about an education award
Mr B started university in 1997 but was refused a grant as an independent student (one who did not receive a parental contribution) because his local education authority (the LEA) judged that some funding from the taxpayer, paid to the college for BTEC and A level courses attended by Mr B, constituted indirect funding to him. The decision to grant independent status was for the LEA to make on advice provided by the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). DfEE were never in doubt that Mr B qualified for independent status (and therefore a higher grant) and they explained their reasons to Mr B's father. But they failed to make the position plain to the LEA, when they consulted them and, even when in possession of the evidence, they failed to realise that they and the LEA were writing to Mr B senior with conflicting views.
Case No. C.741/99
Delay in processing an application to join a nursery education voucher scheme
Mrs B complained that delay by the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) in processing an application by her son's school to register as a provider of nursery education had prevented her from using nursery vouchers for her son's education in the summer term of 1997 and that DfEE had failed to reply to two letters from her. DfEE were not responsible for the school's late application to register under an initial scheme. DfEE subsequently failed to bring their records up to date and gave wrong information about the school to their contractor responsible for administering a replacement scheme. That failure delayed the processing of the school's application to join a successor scheme but did not prevent the school applying for and from receiving nursery education grant. The Ombudsman criticised DfEE for that failure. Neither DfEE nor their contractor were able to trace the two letters the complainant said she had sent to DfEE.
Back to top
Case No. C.1239/99
Failure to answer correspondence
Mr F wrote to the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) in June 1996 (having first written to the Ministry of Defence) to ask about the possibility of buying property which had been compulsorily purchased from a relative in 1940. After supplying further information to DfEE in November 1996 Mr F received only holding replies in October 1997 and June 1998. The Permanent Secretary of DfEE apologised for his Department's very bad handling of a case which strictly was not for them to answer. Their enquiries had however established that Government rules (on offering surplus property acquired by compulsion to the owner or his successors) had been complied with in 1962. DfEE sent a full response to Mr F on 26 March 1999.
Back to top
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
Case No. C.458/99
Driving Standards Agency: issue of a motorcycle test pass certificate
Miss A passed a motorcycle test on a motorcycle which she considered met the minimum test vehicle requirements for a standard motorcycle test. However, the Driving Standards Agency (DSA) examiner issued her with a test pass certificate for light motorcycles only. The Ombudsman found that it was not unreasonable for DSA to have concluded that the motorcycle Miss A had ridden at her driving test had fallen into the light motorcycle category, rather than the standard motorcycle category, by virtue of its maximum capable speed. However, he considered that shortcomings on the part of DSA had denied Miss A the opportunity to take some corrective action either to try to satisfy the examiner that her motorcycle met the standard motorcycle requirements or to postpone her test to be taken on a standard motorcycle. DSA agreed to make changes to their guidance to the public; they amended their procedures for examiners and issued reminders and new instructions to them. In addition, they offered Miss A a free motorcycle driving test and an ex gratia payment of £100 in recognition of the additional trouble and inconvenience DSA had caused her.
Back to top
Case No. C.482/00
Driving Standards Agency: failure to remind an approved driving instructor to renew his registration
Mr X, formerly an approved driving instructor, complained that the Driving Standards Agency (DSA) failed to record receipt of the payment for renewal of his approved driving instructor's registration and also to remind him that his registration was due for renewal, resulting in his name being removed from the register. DSA accepted that they had not sent Mr X a reminder to renew his registration but said that their records showed that Mr X had let his registration lapse and they had subsequently removed him from the register. The Ombudsman criticised DSA for failing to send a reminder but concurred with their view that it was ultimately an approved driving instructor's own responsibility to ensure that registration was renewed.
Back to top
Case No. C.114/96
Highways Agency: maladministration in connection with works undertaken before and after the implementation of a road-widening scheme
The then Department of Transport (DOT) failed to include Mr A's and Mr B's properties in a noise measurement survey undertaken in 1990 before they implemented a motorway widening scheme. Results of noise modelling exercises they subsequently commissioned were inaccurate. At one stage DOT offered Mr A noise insulation, but subsequently told him that he had no statutory right to its provision. They proposed to solve his and a more general perception of the motorway noise problem through the erection of a noise barrier. It later emerged that the effectiveness of the barrier was less than had initially been supposed. The Highways Agency (HA) were slow to commission those works intended to mitigate the noise levels. Subsequently HA agreed to commission further noise surveys but it took them six months to let the contract for the work. HA were ineffective in handling a request from Mr A for compensation. As well as statutory compensation HA made ex gratia payments of £7,750 to Mr A and Mr B in full and final settlement of their compensation claims. The Chief Executive of HA agreed that HA would consider any analogous claims from people in the same location in the light of all the circumstances. He offered his apologies for specific HA shortcomings and HA agreed to consider a low noise surface when the stretch of motorway concerned is next due for maintenance.
Back to top
Case No. C.734/99
Northern Rent Assessment Panel: misleading citizen's charter
The Northern Rent Assessment Panel's citizen's charter led Mr L to expect that he would be able to question the rent officer and his landlord at a rent assessment committee appeal hearing to decide his rent; neither appeared at that hearing. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) told the Ombudsman that only parties to an appeal (the tenant, landlord and their representatives) might appear at such a hearing; the rent officer could not attend. Under the Rent Assessment Committee Regulations 1971 DETR had no power to enforce the attendance of parties at a hearing; they would not have been able to require Mr L's landlord to attend. DETR accepted that the citizen's charter was misleading to the extent that it implied that one party would be given the opportunity to ask questions of the other at a hearing. They apologised for misleading Mr L and undertook, in consultation with all the rent assessment panels in England, to revise the wording of the citizen's charter.
Back to top
Case No. C.512/99
Planning Inspectorate: failure to send a planning inspector's decision letter
The Ombudsman found that the Planning Inspectorate (PI) had been under no statutory duty to send Mr A a copy of their planning Inspector's decision letter on three rights of way orders made by a local authority. However, he found that there had been misunderstanding between PI and the local authority to the extent that each party had believed it was the responsibility of the other to send a copy of the decision letter to Mr A. To prevent such a misunderstanding occurring again, PI said that, in the future, rights of way decision letters sent by them to local authorities would be accompanied by an explanatory leaflet drawing attention to the local authorities' statutory duties for the distribution of decision letters. The Ombudsman also found that the standard opening announcement made by PI planning Inspectors at rights of way inquiries was unclear about those parties to whom PI would notify such decisions; PI agreed to amend the announcement accordingly. In addition the Ombudsman criticised PI for their mishandling of Mr A's correspondence about the matter, for which PI apologised.
Back to top
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Case No. C.285/99
Medical Devices Agency: failure to deal appropriately with correspondence concerning the safety of silicone gel breast implants
In July 1996 and subsequently Mrs X wrote to the Medical Devices Agency (MDA) describing health problems which she believed had been caused by the leakage and rupture of her silicone gel breast implants, which had been inserted in 1976 and removed in 1993. She asked MDA to establish a medical assessment service to provide help for women in her position. MDA replied referring to work done and underway to address the silicone gel breast implant issue. Following further correspondence, in October 1997 Mrs X sent MDA a report form on the subject which MDA agreed to log and investigate under their adverse incident procedure for investigating reports of failures of medical devices. In April 1998 MDA concluded their investigation on the basis that they were unable to confirm that Mrs X's implants had performed outside expectation. In the meantime, Mrs X had complained repeatedly to MDA and the Chief Medical Officer about MDA's failure to treat her letters in 1996 as adverse incident reports. The Ombudsman found that MDA had been remiss in having failed to keep Mrs X's early letters on file. However, he found insufficient grounds on which to criticise MDA for not having taken those letters as the basis for action through the adverse incident procedure. There had been shortcomings in MDA's and the Department of Health's handling of Mrs X's complaints. MDA apologised for their failure to keep Mrs X's letters on file. The Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health clarified the position regarding MDA's use of the adverse incident procedure as regards information provided by members of the public, and apologised if responses to Mrs X and others had not been sufficiently helpful. He also apologised for the shortcomings in the handling of Mrs X's complaints.
Back to top
Case No. C.338/99
Medical Devices Agency: failure to deal appropriately with correspondence concerning the safety of silicone gel breast implants
In September 1996 Miss Y wrote to the Medical Devices Agency (MDA) explaining that her silicone gel breast implants had been removed seven weeks previously following their rupture, and describing problems she had experienced with the implants since their insertion 16 years previously. In December 1997 she sent MDA a report form on the subject which MDA agreed to log and investigate under their adverse incident procedure for investigating reports of failures of medical devices. In April 1998 MDA concluded their investigation on the basis that they were unable to confirm that Miss Y's implants had performed outside expectation. The Ombudsman found that MDA had failed in 1996 to respond effectively to Miss Y's letter, and had also been remiss in having failed to keep the letter on file. However, he found insufficient grounds on which to criticise MDA for not having taken that letter as the basis for action through the adverse incident procedure. The Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health clarified the position regarding MDA's use of the adverse incident procedure as regards information received from members of the public, and apologised if responses to Miss Y and others had not been sufficiently helpful. MDA apologised for the inadequacy of their response to Miss Y's letter and their failure to keep it on file.
Back to top
Case No. C.366/99
Medical Devices Agency: failure to deal appropriately with correspondence concerning the safety of silicone gel breast implants
In October 1996 Mrs Z wrote to the Medical Devices Agency (MDA) explaining that one of her silicone gel breast implants had been removed following rupture, and describing problems she had experienced with the implants since their insertion 20 years previously. MDA replied in general terms. In November 1997 Mrs Z sent MDA a report form on the subject which MDA agreed to log and investigate under their adverse incident procedure for investigating reports of failures of medical devices. In April 1998 MDA concluded their investigation on the basis that they were unable to confirm that Mrs Z's implants had performed outside expectation. The Ombudsman found that MDA had failed in 1996 to respond effectively to Mrs Z's letter, and had also been remiss in having failed to keep the letter on file. However, he found insufficient grounds on which to criticise MDA for not having taken that letter as the basis for action through the adverse incident procedure. The Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health clarified the position regarding MDA's use of the adverse incident procedure as regards information received from members of the public, and apologised if responses to Mrs Z and others had not been sufficiently helpful. MDA apologised for the inadequacy of their response to Mrs Z's letter and their failure to keep it on file.
Back to top
Case No. C.391/99
Medical Devices Agency: failure to deal appropriately with correspondence concerning the safety of silicone gel breast implants
In May 1996 Mrs A wrote to the Medical Devices Agency (MDA) detailing problems she had experienced in the 1980s with silicone gel breast implants, including one implant which in June 1984 had been found to have ruptured. In November 1997 she wrote again to MDA on the subject; on that occasion MDA agreed to log and investigate her letter under their adverse incident procedure for investigating reports of failures of medical devices. In June 1998 MDA concluded their investigation on the basis that it was no longer possible, in the absence of the ruptured implant, to come to any conclusion regarding its performance. The Ombudsman found that MDA had been remiss in failing to keep Mrs A's first letter on their file concerning problems with silicone gel breast implants; however, they would in any event have been entitled to decide that that letter was not a suitable basis for action through the adverse incident procedure. MDA apologised for their failure to keep Mrs A's letter on file.
Back to top
Case No. C. 410/99
Medical Devices Agency: failure to deal appropriately with correspondence concerning the safety of silicone gel breast implants
Between 1994 and 1997 Mrs B wrote to the Medical Devices Agency (MDA) several times detailing problems she had experienced with silicone gel breast implants, including one implant which in May 1994 had been found to have disintegrated. In October 1997 she wrote again to MDA on the subject; on that occasion MDA agreed to log and investigate her letter under their adverse incident procedure for investigating reports of failures of medical devices. In July 1998 MDA concluded their investigation on the basis that it was not possible to say whether the implant that had disintegrated had come to the end of its normal life expectancy. The Ombudsman found that MDA had been remiss in having failed to keep Mrs B's letters on file. However, he found insufficient grounds on which to criticise MDA for not having taken those letters as the basis for action through the adverse incident procedure. The Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health clarified the position regarding MDA's use of the adverse incident procedure as regards information received from members of the public, and apologised if responses to Mrs B and others had not been sufficiently helpful. MDA apologised for their failure to keep Mrs B's letters on file.
Back to top
Case No. C.1100/99
Medical Devices Agency: failure to deal appropriately with correspondence concerning the safety of silicone gel breast implants
In 1996 Mrs C telephoned the Medical Devices Agency (MDA), by her account reporting rupture of her silicone gel breast implants and querying the existence of a procedure to record such incidents. In October 1997 she sent MDA a report form advising them that her implants, which had been inserted in 1976, had been removed because they had ruptured; MDA agreed to log and investigate the matter under their adverse incident procedure for investigating reports of failures of medical devices. In July 1998 MDA concluded their investigation on the basis that it was not possible to say whether Mrs C's implants had performed outside expectation. The Ombudsman found insufficient grounds on which to criticise MDA for not having taken Mrs C's telephone calls as the basis for action through the adverse incident procedure. The Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health clarified the position regarding MDA's use of the adverse incident procedure as regards information received from members of the public, and apologised if responses to Mrs C and others had not been sufficiently helpful.
Back to top
HOME OFFICE
Case No. C.292/99
Failure to take account of the effect of an unsatisfied confiscation order when arranging release on parole
In October 1997 the Home Office Parole Unit notified Mr X that he was to be released from prison and deported to South Africa in December. In so doing they failed to draw attention to the fact that in practice Mr X's release from custody was subject to determination of the matter of a confiscation order against him which remained unsatisfied. The prison had corresponded with the relevant court about the confiscation order in June but did not follow the matter up until December, following which the court imposed an additional prison sentence in default of payment of the order. Meanwhile Mr and Mrs X, with the Home Office's assistance, had made preparations to leave the country. The Home Office's responses to Mrs X's subsequent complaints and requests for information under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information about their mishandling of the matter were persistently inadequate. The Home Office agreed to make an ex gratia payment to Mrs X in compensation for the effect of the actions of the Parole Unit and the prison, and to cover the cost of her correspondence with the Home Office on the matter and compensate her for the botheration caused by their mishandling of it.
Back to top
Case No. C.369/99
Breach of confidentiality by the Immigration Service
In March 1998 Mrs R wrote to the Immigration Service suggesting that illegal immigrants were living in the house next door to her. In May immigration officers visited the house and inadvertently left Mrs R's letter there, thereby exacerbating a pre-existing climate of hostility between Mr and Mrs R and their neighbours. The Immigration Service subsequently acknowledged and apologised for their error and made a number of proposals to tighten the relevant procedures. However, they refused to make an ex gratia payment in compensation for the distress caused by it. The Ombudsman found that position to have been misconceived. The Home Office agreed to consider the matter afresh on receipt of further information from Mr and Mrs R, and to remind staff of the need to consider such payments in all cases.
Back to top
Case No. C.510/99
Delay in dealing with an application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom
The Ombudsman upheld a complaint by Mr A's solicitors that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) of the Home Office had delayed by nearly a year in resolving his application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Ombudsman criticised IND for failing to reply properly to the solicitors' letters. He found no maladministration in IND's Complaints Unit's handling of the solicitors' complaint about the delay, although he criticised an individual officer for his mishandling of that complaint. The Permanent Under Secretary of State apologised for the delay, issued reminders to staff about the need to give applicants realistic expectations about the length of time applications would take, and agreed to offer Mr A an ex gratia payment in recognition of extra solicitors' fees he had incurred as a result of IND's shortcomings.
Back to top
Case No. C.867/99
Delay in dealing with an entry clearance application
The Ombudsman upheld a complaint by Mr A that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) of the Home Office had delayed for 15 months in resolving an entry clearance application to allow his wife to live with him in the United Kingdom. The Ombudsman criticised IND for their poor handling of that application; for their poor record keeping; and for their delay in dealing with Mr A's complaints on the matter. The Permanent Under Secretary of State apologised to Mr A for the inconvenience and anxiety IND's mishandling had caused. IND agreed to remind staff of the importance of dealing with complaints expeditiously and of the good practice of recording telephone conversations about applications with which they are dealing. IND also offered to make Mr A an ex gratia payment of £100 in recognition of the expense, trouble and worry he and his wife had been caused, and to reimburse the cost of his telephone calls to them.
Back to top
Case No. C.12/00
Delay in processing entry clearance applications
The Ombudsman upheld a complaint from Mr X that the processing of applications from his relatives to join him in the United Kingdom was unnecessarily and excessively delayed by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) of the Home Office. The Ombudsman found that that delay had resulted from upheaval in IND caused by the reorganisation of all their casework areas into a new single integrated casework directorate. The Permanent Under Secretary of State offered apologies to Mr X and to solicitors who had been acting on his behalf for the delay and for IND's failure to answer correspondence on the matter, and he undertook to ensure that the applications would be processed without any further unnecessary delay. He also gave details about the recovery project which was in place and which he hoped would soon provide significant improvements in IND's level of service.
Back to top
Case No. C.13/00
Delay in processing entry clearance applications
The Ombudsman upheld a complaint from Mr N's solicitors that the processing of applications from Mr N's relatives to join him in the United Kingdom was unnecessarily and excessively delayed by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) of the Home Office. The Ombudsman found that that delay had resulted from upheaval in IND caused by the reorganisation of all their casework areas into a new single integrated casework directorate. The Permanent Under Secretary of State offered apologies to Mr N and his solicitors for the delay and for IND's failure to answer correspondence on the matter, and he undertook to ensure that the applications would be processed without any further unnecessary delay. He also gave details about the recovery project which was in place and which he hoped would soon provide significant improvements in IND's level of service.
Back to top
Case No. C.305/00
Delay in processing an application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom
The Ombudsman upheld a complaint on behalf of Mr and Mrs X that the processing of Mrs X's application to remain indefinitely in the United Kingdom was delayed by nearly 22 months by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) of the Home Office (HO). The Permanent Under Secretary of State at HO told the Ombudsman that that delay had its root causes in, among other things, a failure to link Mrs X's application and file. He blamed IND's failure to answer correspondence chasing progress on the application on its possible loss during an office move. In addition he said that IND had overlooked the need to answer a formal complaint on the matter because of upheaval during the roll-out phase of IND's new single integrated casework directorate. As a result of the Ombudsman's intervention, Mrs X's application was processed as a matter of urgency. The Permanent Under Secretary of State also offered apologies to Mr and Mrs X and IND reminded its staff of procedures to be followed when dealing with unlinked correspondence.
Back to top
Case No. C.528/99
HM Prison Service: shortcomings in relation to the health care of a prisoner
In November 1994, following his transfer from prison to hospital, Mr X died of liver failure due to hepatitis of unknown cause. The available evidence suggested that the illness that had led to Mr X's death had begun to manifest itself in October; he had been seen by prison health care staff on numerous occasions in the second half of October and there was no evidence that the medical attention he received had been hindered by maladministration by the Prison Service. There were shortcomings in the Prison Service's handling of a hospital appointment which had been arranged for Mr X in July and in their completion of forms relating to release of responsibility for health services, for which the Prison Service apologised, but those failings were unconnected with Mr X's death. However, the absence from Mr X's prison medical record of any indication that the Prison Service had considered the need to offer him immunisation against hepatitis B, in accordance with a general recommendation by the Prison Service's Director of Health Care, remained of concern.
Back to top
Case No. C.1389/99
United Kingdom Passport Agency: shortcomings in considering a claim for compensation
Following an error by the United Kingdom Passport Agency (UKPA) in amending his wife's passport, Mr X claimed compensation for distress and loss of enjoyment suffered on a holiday abroad due to difficulties with the passport. UKPA rejected the claim but some nine months later, after further correspondence from Mr X and the Member, they offered to pay £500. The Ombudsman found that offer to be an adequate reflection of the seriousness of UKPA's error and its likely consequences, but criticised UKPA for shortcomings in their system for dealing with such claims, which had put Mr X to additional trouble in pursuing his claim. UKPA agreed to address the shortcomings in their system and increased their offer of compensation to Mr X to £1,000 to reflect the additional trouble to which he had been put.
Back to top
Case No. C.1408/99
United Kingdom Passport Agency: mishandling of an application for a passport
Mr X complained that the United Kingdom Passport Agency (UKPA) had issued him with a one year passport although he had applied for a ten year passport. From the evidence available, the Ombudsman could not reconcile Mr X's account that UKPA had not told him they had done that and UKPA's account that they had. UKPA told the Ombudsman that they had restricted the validity of the passport while they made additional checks about Mr X's application; however they had failed to complete those checks and to contact Mr X about the issue of an extended passport. Mr X was later refused entry to a flight to Australia because his passport had expired, although he had not known that. It had taken him two days to get a new passport from UKPA and to find another flight. UKPA offered to compensate Mr X for his actual financial losses, apologised to him for their failings, and undertook to review their internal procedures to prevent such errors happening again.
Summaries of other investigations completed continued
Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
|
