Improving Services / Selected cases / Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - October 2000 to March 2001

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 - October 2000 to March 2001

Volume 4 - 2nd REPORT - SESSION 2001-2002

Chapter 2

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Case No: C.1102/00
Appeals Service: mishandling of an appeal, including the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information, and mishandling of the resulting complaint

Mr M asked the Independent Tribunal Service (now the Appeals Service) not to send information he had provided to his ex-wife when he completed forms to appeal to a child support appeal tribunal. The Independent Tribunal Service could not have complied fully with his request because the legislation only permitted specified information concerning the whereabouts of an appellant to be kept confidential, which is normally done by editing the appeal documents to remove the relevant information. However, they ignored Mr M’s request for confidentiality and allowed unedited appeal papers to be sent to his ex-wife, thus disclosing the sensitive information he did not wish her to receive. The Ombudsman found that that was a serious error. The Independent Tribunal Service should have been aware of the sensitivity of Mr M’s case from his appeal letter and should have explained to him the limits to the confidentiality which could be provided to enable him to consider whether he wished to proceed with his appeal. The Ombudsman also found that the Independent Tribunal Service handled Mr M’s resulting complaint poorly and were slow to deal with his request for compensation. The Chief Executive apologised personally to Mr M. The Independent Tribunal Service gave all staff dealing with child support appeals fresh training in confidentiality and security issues. They awarded Mr M a consolatory payment of £300 for gross embarrassment and reimbursed costs of £60.68 which he had incurred in pursuing his complaint. They also awarded Mr M and his partner £250 each for severe distress.

Case No: C.11/01
Appeals Service: mishandling of arrangements for appeal tribunal hearings

Mrs H complained that the Appeals Service had made mistakes in handling the arrangements for the tribunal hearings of her three appeals. The Ombudsman found that the Appeals Service had overlooked requests which Mr H made for certain arrangements at the hearings to help Mrs H who suffered ill-health; they failed properly to deal with Mr H’s enquiries about witnesses at the hearings; and, having agreed to consider his claim for compensation, failed to do so. After the Ombudsman’s intervention the Appeals Service made Mr and Mrs H a consolatory payment of £200 and carried out remedial training of staff. The Chief Executive of the Appeals Service also agreed to consider a revision to their procedural instructions and in the meantime arranged for all staff to be reminded of the current procedures. The Chief Executive apologised for the Appeals Service’s shortcomings.

Case No: C.506/00
Benefits Agency and Appeals Service: misdirection regarding a ‘life’ award of the middle rate care component of disability living allowance; and delays by the Appeals Service in considering her appeal

Miss E complained that the Benefits Agency (BA) had informed her that she would receive the middle rate care component of disability living allowance for life but subsequently withdrew the award. The Ombudsman found that BA had decided that Miss E was entitled to the middle rate care component of disability living allowance for two years but that the decision was mistakenly input as a life award on the disability living allowance computer system, which issued a decision notification to this effect on 17 April 1996.

The Ombudsman found that there were delays on the part of the Appeals Service in hearing her appeals, and in responding to requests from the Commissioners’ Office for copies of certain papers following an application for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioners. The Appeals Service decided to seek a fresh medical report, but the medical examination did not take place until 8 July 1999. The appeal was held on 1 November, but was postponed since a full set of documents had not been made available to all parties. On 9 March 2000 the tribunal awarded Miss E both the mobility and care components of disability living allowance at the lowest rate from 23 January 1996 to 14 April 1999, and again from 15 April 1999 to 14 April 2001. As a result BA paid Miss E arrears of the care component totalling £1,458.50.

Case No. C.594/00
Benefits Agency and Appeals Service: mishandling of claim for incapacity benefit

The Ombudsman found that the Benefits Agency (BA) had handled Mr Q’s entitlement to incapacity benefit poorly, causing delay in the payment of his benefit and dependants’ increases. They also failed to notify him formally of the outcome of an all work test. BA told him incorrectly that he did not qualify for incapacity benefit because he had not paid enough national insurance contributions. He appealed but BA corrected their mistake and asked him whether he wanted to withdraw his appeal. BA then told the Appeals Service that Mr Q wanted to withdraw his appeal, notwithstanding that it did not fall to be dealt with by the Appeals Service, and had not been lodged with them in any event. The Appeals Service assumed that Mr Q intended to withdraw an earlier appeal, causing confusion for Mr Q. However, the Ombudsman found no evidence of maladministration by BA in reaching a decision that Mr Q should be treated as fit for work, and no evidence that BA had acted in concert with others to deprive him of benefit, or had conducted a campaign against him as he had alleged. BA paid Mr Q arrears of benefit in full, plus interest for their delay and a consolatory payment for gross inconvenience.

Case No: C.1624/00
Benefits Agency, Appeals Service and the Court Service of the Lord Chancellor’s Department: delay and mishandling of an appeal concerning disability living allowance

Mr D complained about delays in handling his claim for disability living allowance and about shortcomings following his appeal against the decision to disallow his claim. On 26 February 1997 the Benefits Agency (BA) recorded the receipt of a claim for disability living allowance from Mr D. The claim form had been signed by Mr D and dated 24 February 1996. Although Mr D said that he had originally submitted his claim to BA in February 1996 he was unable to provide any documentary proof to substantiate that claim. An adjudication officer disallowed Mr D’s claim and he appealed against that decision. Delays by the Appeals Service and the Court Service in processing the appeal meant that well over three years went by before the claim was settled. BA delayed providing an appeal submission and the adjournment of the first disability appeal tribunal hearing was caused by a document being missed from their appeal submission. The reconvened disability appeal tribunal upheld the adjudication officer’s decision but Mr D sought leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioners. That was granted and on 1 November 1999 a Commissioner set aside the tribunal’s decision and remitted the appeal to a differently constituted tribunal for rehearing. The appeal was re-heard on 8 May 2000 and the tribunal found that Mr D was entitled to the lowest rates of both the care and mobility components of disability living allowance from 26 February 1997 to 25 February 2002. BA paid Mr D arrears of benefit totalling £4,680.80 for the period 26 February 1997 (when BA received Mr D’s claim) to 13 June 2000. The Ombudsman considered that there were no grounds to ask BA to backdate Mr D’s claim to a date earlier than 26 February 1997. BA made Mr D an ex gratia award of £286.28 by way of interest on the late payment of benefit. They also made a consolatory payment of £200 to Mr D for the gross inconvenience caused to him by their poor handling of his case. The Appeals Service made a consolatory payment of £100 to Mr D for the inconvenience caused to him by their failure to process his appeal efficiently. Mr D also received apologies and the Court Service undertook to take measures to improve their performance.

Case No: C.1789/00
Benefits Agency and Appeals Service: errors and delays in handling a request for an appeal and in dealing with the subsequent series of appeals

The Ombudsman found that the Benefits Agency (BA) had, in 1996, failed to treat a letter, from a Citizen’s Advice Bureau on Mrs H’s behalf, as a request for an appeal against their decision not to renew her entitlement to disability living allowance. Instead, BA carried out a second review of the decision. Mrs H asked again to appeal and BA mistakenly based the appeal on that review decision rather than on the first review of the original decision. The tribunal which followed awarded disability living allowance to Mrs H, but gave an incorrect starting date. The Central Adjudication Service identified that the tribunal decision was fundamentally flawed, being based on the wrong decision, but BA ignored their advice and concentrated instead on asking the Independent Tribunal Service (the predecessor of the Appeals Service) to correct the start date of the award. The Independent Tribunal Service took too long – five months – to make the correction. Mrs H appealed to the Social Security Commissioners asking for a higher award of disability living allowance. As a result of delay by the Independent Tribunal Service, a Social Security Commissioner considered the case two years later, and directed that Mrs H’s 1996 appeal should be reheard because the tribunal’s decision was invalid (because it was based on the wrong decision). The Appeals Service then failed to implement the Commissioner’s directions for a year, in spite of promptings from BA (themselves prompted by Mrs H and her Member of Parliament). Preparations, which included a medical examination of Mrs H, were eventually made for a second appeal tribunal hearing. The Appeals Service did not recognise a letter from her husband as a complaint when they might have done. The Ombudsman criticised BA and the Appeals Service for their very poor performance. The Appeals Service made a consolatory payment of £100 to Mrs H. BA also made a £100 consolatory payment for gross inconvenience, and a further £150 for severe distress. Both Agencies have also apologised to Mrs H.

Case No: C.1815/00
Benefits Agency and Appeals Service: failure to notify the termination of benefit, inappropriate handling of a change of appeal venue and mishandling of social fund loan repayment

Mr X’s mother complained that her son had not been advised that his earlier claim to income support had ceased until the Benefits Agency (BA) told her that before they could consider her son’s claim for severe disability premium he would need to make a new application for income support. After Mr X successfully claimed income support, BA advised him that his claim for severe disability premium could not be backdated, unlike an earlier claim for disability living allowance care component. When Mr X appealed against that decision and attended the hearing he was told it had been adjourned. The Appeals Service then listed the hearing at a different venue without having due regard for Mr X’s difficulties in attending. At a later date, BA granted Mr X a social fund loan which Mr X requested to repay at a reduced rate. BA’s failure to respond properly to that request meant the loan was virtually repaid before reduced payments could be implemented.

The Ombudsman did not uphold the complaint that BA had not notified Mr X about the termination of his income support claim. However, the Ombudsman criticised the Appeals Service for not being more aware of Mr X’s difficulties and for not consulting him about the proposed change of venue. The Ombudsman criticised BA for their poor handling of Mr X’s request for reduced repayment of his loan. Following the Ombudsman’s investigation, the Appeals Service took steps to improve their arrangements for informing appellants of changes of hearing venues in future. BA also paid Mr X £50 for inconvenience. Both the Appeals Service and BA offered apologies to Mr X.

Case No: C.38/01
Benefits Agency and Appeals Service: allegation of inappropriate conduct by visiting officer; and mishandling

Ms M complained that a visiting officer checking on her award of disability living allowance failed to show his identification or to explain that his visit was part of the Benefit Integrity Project; and that an examining medical practitioner was abrupt and shouted at her. The Benefits Agency (BA) sent an apology for the visiting officer’s shortcomings. Medical Services apologised if the examining medical practitioner had seemed abrupt, but the Ombudsman found that they had failed to discuss the complaint with the examining medical practitioner first and had given a false account to Ms M in their reply. However, BA’s decision to disallow Ms M’s disability living allowance was not a matter on which the Ombudsman had jurisdiction to intervene. The Ombudsman found that the Appeals Service failed to respond to and misrepresented BA’s repeated requests, and Ms M’s solicitors’ request, for a statement of the reasons for the decision of the disability appeal tribunal which heard Ms M’s appeal and restored part of her disability living allowance. That prevented BA from making an appeal to the Social Security Commissioners. The Ombudsman also found that BA did not address with sufficient vigour or sympathy Ms M’s claim that the suspension of her benefit following the tribunal hearing was causing her hardship. BA and the Appeals Service offered their apologies and each offered consolatory payments of £50. BA also gave the Ombudsman assurances about changes in their procedures for handling complaints against examining medical practitioners.

Case No: C.148/01
Benefits Agency and Appeals Service: alleged collusion to obstruct appeal rights, and mishandling of appeal tribunal hearing

Mr B’s complaints that the Benefits Agency (BA) had denied him incapacity benefit and unreasonably refused to backdate his income support, and that the all work test was unreliable and unfair, were outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as were his complaints about the conduct of an appeal tribunal hearing in April 1999. The Ombudsman’s investigation into whether papers Mr B submitted for that hearing were withheld from the tribunal was inconclusive. However, the Ombudsman recognised that, because Mr B’s application for incapacity benefit and national insurance credits for incapacity had been rejected on appeal, the tribunal in April 1999 could in law have had no other outcome than to reject Mr B’s appeal against the refusal of income support. The Ombudsman found that the Appeals Service had failed to deal properly with correspondence on the case, including a letter from Mr B’s solicitors. He found no evidence to support Mr B’s allegation that BA and the Appeals Service colluded to deny him his appeal rights. The Appeals Service apologised to Mr B for their shortcomings and made him a consolatory payment of £50 for the inconvenience caused.

Case No: C.1166/00
Benefits Agency: recovery of overpaid income support from a deceased person’s estate

Mr P’s great aunt, Mrs T, received income support from July 1990 until she died in December 1997. The Benefits Agency (BA) last reviewed her entitlement in 1990 when Mrs T did not declare that she was receiving an occupational widow’s pension. In May 1998 BA informed Mr P, as executor, that there appeared to have been an overpayment of income support to his great aunt. In January 1999 they calculated the amount overpaid, from July 1990 onward, as £6,589.51. The Ombudsman noted some shortcomings in the way BA had dealt with the case, but did not regard BA’s failure to review Mrs T’s entitlement, during her lifetime, as maladministrative. The Ombudsman noted from available case law that the onus remained on Mrs T to notify BA of relevant changes in her circumstances which might have had a bearing on her entitlement to benefit.

Case No: C.1313/00
Benefits Agency: delay and confusion in calculating an overpayment of invalid care allowance and poor handling of correspondence

Mr J complained that the Benefits Agency (BA) mishandled the recovery of an overpayment of Mrs J’s invalid care allowance and unreasonably threatened to take court action against her. He also complained that BA failed to respond to his and his wife’s correspondence and sent conflicting and intimidating letters. The Ombudsman upheld the complaint. He found that BA had failed to answer a crucial piece of correspondence and had shown scant regard to Mr and Mrs J’s personal circumstances. After the Ombudsman’s involvement BA agreed to waive recovery of the overpayment of £325.65. They also assured the Ombudsman that they had amended the wording of standard letters sent by the debt recovery section.

Case No: C.1342/00
Benefits Agency: loss of a medical certificate, delay in reinstating benefit and unsatisfactory handling of complaint

A tribunal reinstated Mr R’s incapacity benefit seven months after the Benefits Agency (BA) had withdrawn it when he failed the ‘all work test.’ He had submitted a new claim and medical certificates during the interim, but benefit was not reinstated. The Ombudsman found that Mr R’s claim and the accompanying certificates which he submitted were dealt with appropriately and were not mislaid. Mr R also claimed income support pending the outcome of his appeal, but BA failed to follow their own guidelines and procedures and initially rejected that application. BA awarded him backdated income support approximately ten weeks later. Mr R claimed that worry about his financial position led him to relinquish his council tenancy and had an adverse effect on his health. His complaint to BA about both benefit claims was then subject to a number of delays and letters to him were also incorrectly addressed. The then Chief Executive apologised to Mr R for the standard of service that he had received and BA offered him a consolatory payment of £200 for worry and distress and £20 for out-of-pocket expenses. BA also reminded staff of the procedures for valuing property when considering income support claims.

Case No: C.1388/00
Benefits Agency and Employment Service: misleading advice about how using redundancy money to repay a mortgage would affect entitlement to benefit

When Mr J registered as unemployed he was told by an officer of either the Benefits Agency (BA) or the Employment Service that if he used his redundancy money to repay his mortgage he would not be able to claim benefit for a period equal to the number of weeks which that repayment represented in benefits. Mr J used his redundancy money to pay for living expenses and monthly mortgage payments, which led him and his family into financial difficulties. Later a different Benefits Agency officer told him that the original advice had been incorrect. The Ombudsman agreed with BA that the original advice had not been incorrect and concluded that Mr J had not been misdirected. The Chief Executive of BA apologised to Mr J for the confusion which the contradictory advice had caused him. The Ombudsman considered that to be a satisfactory outcome to the complaint.

Case No: C.1406/00
Benefits Agency: failure to make mortgage interest payments as part of jobseeker’s allowance

Mr B complained that the Benefits Agency (BA) failed to make interest payments to his mortgage lender, which led to arrears on his mortgage account. He also complained that BA failed to tell him that the payments had ceased, destroyed his case papers prematurely and failed to give him an adequate explanation of action taken on his case. The Ombudsman found that BA’s handling of the case contributed to the initial build up of arrears on Mr B’s mortgage and that their poor explanations caused Mr B and the Member’s constituency secretary a good deal of aggravation. BA apologised to Mr B but declined to offer any compensation because they established that at the date he qualified for mortgage interest payments he actually had no entitlement to benefit.

Case No: C.1482/00
Benefits Agency: misdirection and failure to implement fully the decision of an independent appeal tribunal

The Benefits Agency (BA) failed to explain properly to Mr S that certain changes of circumstances might effect his entitlement to disability working allowance. BA ended Mr S’s award when he notified them that his daughter had left his household and that her partner had claimed jobseeker’s allowance for her. An independent tribunal decided that Mr S had been overpaid £86.45 and found that that sum was not recoverable from him. The tribunal also decided that regulation 55 of the Disability Working Allowance Regulations did not apply to Mr S’s case. They said that there had been no overlapping of benefits and that that part of the disability working allowance paid in respect of his daughter was no longer due to Mr S. BA subsequently wrote off the overpayment but refused to pay Mr S the balance of his disability working allowance, since they considered that their original decision to terminate his allowance had been correct. BA told the Ombudsman that they disagreed with the tribunal’s interpretation of regulation 55 of the Disability Working Allowance Regulations but they had not felt it appropriate to appeal to the Social Security Commissioners on a point of law. Following the intervention of the Ombudsman, BA accepted that the tribunal had asked them to pay Mr S the balance of his disability working allowance award minus the allowance for his daughter. BA apologised to Mr S and made him an ex gratia payment of £1,062.60, plus £101.50 interest for loss of use of that money together with £250 in recognition of the gross inconvenience they had caused him.

Case No: C.1491/00
Benefits Agency and Employment Service: inappropriate fraud investigation

When Mr E claimed jobseeker’s allowance he declared his part-time earnings by providing his pay slips to the Employment Service. They however failed to pass on the payslips when they forwarded his claim to the Benefits Agency (BA) for processing. BA therefore overpaid benefit to Mr E and when that was discovered they instigated a fraud investigation. The benefit fraud service contacted Mr E’s employer for details of his earnings, which caused Mr E worry and embarrassment. The Ombudsman criticised the Employment Service for their failure to pass on the evidence of earnings and BA for starting a fraud enquiry inappropriately. He welcomed the Employment Service’s award of £250 to Mr E for the embarrassment he had been caused and BA’s consolatory payment of £250 for the inconvenience he had suffered. BA also provided Mr E with a letter stating that the fraud investigation had been inappropriate and had resulted from administrative errors.

Case No: C.1500/00
Benefits Agency: alleged improper conduct of an interview

Mr M complained that two officers from the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service of the Benefits Agency (BA) had called unannounced at his home, had not explained properly what section they were from before entering, had treated him and his wife discourteously, belittling them, had refused to leave when asked, and had implied that his and his wife’s disability living allowance would be stopped abruptly. Mr M was dissatisfied with BA’s handling of his subsequent complaints. The Ombudsman’s staff interviewed the parties to the complaint and the officers strongly denied Mr M’s allegations, insisting that the interview had been conducted in a professional manner and fully in line with the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service’s established procedures. The Ombudsman was unable to find conclusive evidence to substantiate the complaint. However, the Ombudsman found shortcomings in BA’s record keeping.

Case No: C1518/00
Benefits Agency: alleged misdirection about rules of entitlement to housing benefit

Miss V alleged that the Benefits Agency (BA) failed to tell her when she applied for income support that she would need to take up occupancy of a property on which she was about to take the tenancy before becoming entitled to housing benefit from the local authority. As a result she was not paid housing benefit, as she had been led to expect, for the first five weeks of her tenancy. She maintained that she told BA on two occasions that she intended to move into the property only after it had been re-decorated. The Ombudsman found that, on the balance of probabilities, there were misunderstandings between Miss V and the BA officers she spoke to about her precise intentions, but that she had not been misdirected.

Case No: C.1590/00
Benefits Agency: failure to carry out a habitual residence test timeously and failure to fully consider crisis loan decisions

Shortly after returning from abroad, Mr G claimed jobseeker’s allowance and, while waiting for his claim to be determined, the Benefits Agency (BA) paid him a crisis loan for the period between 21and 23 June 1999. On 24 June the Employment Service arranged for BA to visit Mr G on 1 July for a habitual residence test interview. When Mr G applied for another crisis loan BA refused to make him a payment because he had not completed the habitual residence test. At Mr G’s request, BA brought forward his interview to 25 June. When, on 25 June, Mr G made a third application for a social fund crisis loan BA again refused to pay him because his habitual residence status had not been determined and they could not be sure that he would be able to repay a loan. On 28 June 1999 BA decided that Mr G was habitually resident in the UK and made Mr G a crisis loan of £173.04 for the period 28 June to 9 July.

Following the Ombudsman’s intervention BA apologised and agreed to make Mr G a consolatory payment of £100 for severe distress and inconvenience. BA accepted that staff in the local office concerned should have additional training to avoid a similar mistake happening again.

Case No: C.1619/00
Benefits Agency: incorrect notification of entitlement to retirement pension and subsequent errors and delays in establishing the correct entitlement

The Benefits Agency (BA) mixed up Mrs C’s national insurance contribution record with that of another person who had a similar name and the same date of birth. That error had serious ramifications for Mrs C as it led to BA telling her on two occasions in early 1998 that she was entitled to a weekly retirement pension of £77.98 when in fact she was only entitled to £22.65. Mrs C gave up her part-time job on the assumption that she would receive a weekly pension of £77.98. A few days after leaving her employment and just before she was due to collect her first pension payment, BA told Mrs C that there had been an error and that she could not be guaranteed a pension. Further errors and delays on the part of BA, coupled with the problems associated with the implementation of the new National Insurance Recording System, meant that it was June 1999 before BA could tell Mrs C what her correct entitlement was. Although Mrs C’s husband continued to receive an overlapping adult dependency increase in his incapacity benefit while Mrs C’s pension entitlement was being sorted out, she complained that the decision to leave her employment was based on incorrect information provided by BA and that the consequent loss of earnings caused her to suffer financial difficulties and health problems. The Ombudsman found that no arrears of retirement pension were due to Mrs C as her husband had received an overlapping increase in his benefit for her. As a result, the Ombudsman found no grounds on which to press BA to pay compensation for the delay in paying Mrs C her retirement pension. On the question of actual financial loss it transpired that Mrs C could have returned to her job had she considered that her financial commitments necessitated such a course of action. In view of that the Ombudsman was not of the view that the loss of income that Mrs C said she had suffered was a direct and unavoidable result of the misleading information given to her by BA. Consequently he did not consider that he had sufficient grounds to ask BA to reconsider their decision on that aspect of Mrs C’s claim for compensation. However, after the Ombudsman’s intervention BA decided to make Mrs C a consolatory payment of £450. That was made up of £300 for gross inconvenience and £150 for distress. The then Chief Executive apologised for BA’s failings.

Case No: C.1652/00
Benefits Agency: failure to implement tribunal decision

Mr T complained that the Benefits Agency (BA) refused to compensate him after a Social Security Appeal Tribunal found that BA had misdirected him in 1986.

The Ombudsman found that instead of implementing the tribunal’s findings or contesting them by making an application to the Social Security Commissioners, BA conducted a fresh investigation into whether they had misdirected Mr T in 1986. Following the intervention of the Ombudsman BA paid Mr T £120 arrears of invalid care allowance, £50 for arrears of Christmas Bonus, £82.31 for loss of use of that money, £7,202.18 arrears of income support, £1,398.88 for loss of use of that money and £250 for the inconvenience they had caused him.

Case No: C.1654/00
Benefits Agency: advice about the effect short-term employment would have on benefit entitlement

The Ombudsman did not uphold the complaint that Ms F had been misdirected by the Benefits Agency (BA) when she sought advice about claiming Working Families’ Tax Credit, although he found it likely that misunderstandings between Ms F and BA had occurred. While it was impossible for the Ombudsman to determine precisely what was said during Ms F’s oral exchange with BA, there was no evidence to indicate that BA were aware that Ms F’s employment would be temporary or that she required advice about her position once the period of her employment came to an end. A misunderstanding resulted and Ms F came away with the impression that her benefit entitlement would return to its earlier level, including access to free school meals for her daughter, when she stopped work. The Ombudsman concluded that although there had been failings in the service provided by BA, there had been no maladministration by them through which Ms F had incurred a financial loss.

Case No: C.1795/00
Benefits Agency: mishandling of income support claim contributing to overpayment of housing and council tax benefit

Mrs C complained that the Benefits Agency (BA) had wrongly notified her local authority housing department that she was receiving income support. She said that this incorrect notification had resulted in a substantial overpayment of housing and council tax benefit being paid to her, which the local authority were now seeking to recover. The Ombudsman found that BA’s handling of Mrs C’s income support application had been poor and had started the unfortunate chain of events which had led to the subsequent overpayment. However, the Ombudsman was unable to demonstrate that the link between BA’s errors and Mrs C’s overpayment had been conclusively proved, particularly in the light of the local authority’s assertion that the prime cause of the overpayment was Mrs C’s alleged failure to notify them of her return to work. The Chief Executive apologised for BA’s failings and Mrs C was awarded a consolatory payment of £150 in recognition of the gross inconvenience BA’s errors had caused her.

Case No: C.1801/00
Benefits Agency: errors resulting from an incorrect record of national insurance contributions, and mishandling

Mr T was wrongly awarded sickness benefit, followed by invalidity benefit and incapacity benefit, when he was released from prison in 1994. His national insurance contributions had been incorrectly recorded on his benefit history sheet (he should not have been awarded national insurance credits for his period of imprisonment). The mistake was not discovered until April 1998 and then not put right until November 1999. Mr T was not notified in advance that his incapacity benefit was to cease. His subsequent claim to income support was mishandled so that he repeatedly had to collect replacement girocheques from his local office. At one stage his local authority was wrongly notified that his income support had ceased and they stopped his council tax and housing benefit. Mistakes were also made in recording Mr T’s true national insurance contributions record and he was given to understand that he must repay £18,796.59 in overpaid benefit. After the Ombudsman’s intervention, the Benefits Agency sorted out Mr T’s national insurance position, awarded him a consolatory payment of £100 and decided not to seek recovery of the overpaid benefit.

Case No: C.1809/00
Benefits Agency and Employment Service: loss of benefit and national insurance contributions due to an inappropriate fraud investigation

Mr P was interviewed by two Benefits Agency (BA) fraud investigators in March 1997. He then failed to sign on as unemployed. His jobseeker’s allowance was withdrawn and he was without benefit from 26 February to 21 April 1997. BA told Mr P’s solicitors in April that they had been seeking to interview a different Mr P, and the solicitors asked BA to compensate him for their mistake. The Ombudsman criticised BA for not replying to the request for compensation, and for failing to ensure that the fraud investigators had followed recommended practice in keeping records of their investigations. After the Ombudsman’s intervention BA awarded Mr P national insurance credits for the period when he had not received benefit. BA also paid Mr P £385.70 to cover the loss of benefit, £61.91 interest as compensation for delay, £200 for inconvenience, and £200 for embarrassment.

Case No: C.110/01
Benefits Agency: alleged misdirection and failure to investigate a complaint properly

In April 1997 Mr F, a member of the European Union, entered the UK and submitted claims for both contributions and income-based jobseeker’s allowance. Benefits Agency (BA) referred his claim to their Pensions and Overseas Directorate who later advised that Mr F’s claim could not be enhanced with contributions paid abroad. Mr F subsequently alleged that, at his initial interview, he had been told that his benefit would be enhanced. When BA considered Mr F’s complaint they refused to make a payment for financial loss and effectively ignored his assertion that there had been a witness to the alleged misdirection. The Ombudsman’s investigation could not establish precisely what was said to Mr F when he claimed benefit. BA agreed to reconsider the claim for financial loss, having taken evidence from Mr F’s witness, but remained unsatisfied that their staff had misdirected Mr F. Nevertheless they made a special payment of £100 in recognition of the poor handling of his complaint.

Case No: C.324/01
Benefits Agency: alleged misleading advice about the scope of a funeral payment

Mrs J applied for a funeral payment to assist with the cost of her late brother’s funeral. The family were given an out-of-date leaflet about the social fund and expected on the basis of what the leaflet said and what they were told at the Benefits Agency (BA) local offices that the payment would cover more elements of the funeral director’s bill than transpired. The payment Mrs J received covered only cemetery fees for the burial plot, the interment and re-turfing the plot, plus limited travel expenses and £600 towards other funeral costs, less the deduction of a sum available from the deceased’s estate. In the absence of contemporaneous records the Ombudsman was unable to determine conclusively what questions the family had asked and whether the answers they were given were accurate responses to those questions, but he criticised BA for issuing an out-of date leaflet and for shortcomings in the handling of Mr J’s complaint to them.

Case No: C.1393/99
Child Support Agency: mishandling

The Child Support Agency (CSA) mishandled Mrs O’s initial application for maintenance in respect of her two daughters by failing to send her former husband a maintenance enquiry form before incorrectly closing the case. When one of Mrs O’s daughters went to live with her father he had to apply for maintenance as he was receiving income support. In order to have a nil assessable income (and consequently a nil maintenance assessment) Mrs O had to make a counter-claim for maintenance against her former husband and to be receiving family credit. On 25 September CSA interviewed Mrs O to see if she wished to apply for maintenance or claim “good cause” for not so doing. The Ombudsman found that on the balance of probabilities CSA had failed during that interview to advise Mrs O of the financial consequences of seeking “good cause” for not making such a counter-claim. A child support officer accepted “good cause” and on 12 October 1997 CSA closed Mrs O’s application for maintenance as a parent with care but continued to process her case as a non-resident parent, under which she had a liability for maintenance as she was regarded as having an assessable income. On 3 February 1998 CSA calculated Mrs O’s liability as £20.98 per week effective from 16 June 1997. CSA made further assessments including a nil assessment effective from 11 January 1999. Mrs O paid all the maintenance due including arrears that had accrued. CSA were slow to take proper notice of the voluntary payments Mrs O had made in the initial payment period. CSA refunded Mrs O £831.18 in respect of the voluntary payments and agreed to pay a further £61.38 by way of interest. They also paid Mrs O £456.06 in respect of lost contributions to maintenance in respect of her initial application for maintenance, as well as £86.70 by way of interest. CSA made consolatory payments totalling £150 to Mrs O, together with a further payment of £400 for distress. Although CSA had failed to advise Mrs O of the financial consequences of seeking “good cause” the Ombudsman decided that he did not have any grounds on which he could ask CSA to pay further compensation. The then Chief Executive apologised for CSA’s failings.

Case No: C.325/00
Child Support Agency: maladministration in determining compensation

CSA’s Independent Case Examiner found that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had mishandled the child support maintenance assessment for Mr T. In particular they had delayed in making the initial assessment, while arrears of £5,026.19 had accrued; failed to take account of information Mr T had supplied about a capital transfer to his former wife; delayed implementing a Child Support Appeal Tribunal’s findings which led to a reduced assessment and an overpayment by Mr T of £2,284.79; and misinformed Mr T about the scope to defer his debt. Mr T had long-standing health problems but from August 1997 when the initial assessment was made those problems were exacerbated and he also began to suffer from stress-related depression. From February 1998 he was unable to work and he moved on to half pay in May. He took early retirement in December 1998. CSA offered him consolatory payments of £150 for inconvenience and £150 for stress, plus £10 towards his out-of-pocket expenses in pursuing his case. The Ombudsman found that in reaching those decisions on compensation CSA had not taken account of all the relevant facts, some of which emerged from his investigation and were not previously known to CSA’s special payments team. CSA agreed to review the special payments decisions, calling for additional evidence as necessary.

Case No: C.465/00
Child Support Agency: misdirection and failure to give proper consideration to whether payments made during the initial payment period should be treated as payments in lieu of child support maintenance

The Child Support Agency (CSA) failed to apply independent judgment when considering whether payments that Mr H had made during the initial payment period should be treated as payments in lieu of child support maintenance. Instead they accepted, apparently without question, the parent with care’s assertion that those payments were not in lieu of child support maintenance. CSA acknowledged that they also failed to explain properly to Mr H that certain payments that he made after being notified of his first maintenance assessment would not be offset against his liability. After the intervention of the Ombudsman, CSA looked again at their decisions on payments made during the initial payment period. They decided that Mr H had made one payment of £33 in lieu of child support maintenance and agreed to give further consideration to certain other payments on production of satisfactory evidence. CSA also agreed to compensate Mr H for £560 of expenditure that he incurred after they had misdirected him. CSA agreed to pay Mr H consolatory payments totalling £200 in recognition of the gross inconvenience they had caused him.

Case No: C.539/00
Child Support Agency: mishandling an application for child support maintenance

The Child Support Agency mishandled Ms L’s application for child support maintenance and delayed making an assessment against the non-resident parent. They also mislaid her papers and failed to respond to her telephone calls. As a result of the Ombudsman’s investigation Ms L received an apology from the Chief Executive, an advance payment of around £4,700 and payment for gross inconvenience of £50 in addition to the £100 which Ms L had already been awarded.

Case No: C.688/00
Child Support Agency: failure to secure maintenance payments from the non-resident parent before he moved abroad and out of jurisdiction

Mrs R made a claim for child support maintenance in April 1993 but the Child Support Agency (CSA) did not make an assessment until April 1994. CSA failed to take account of the voluntary payments that the non-resident parent had made. They credited them to the wrong account and gave the non-resident parent incorrect advice about the amount of arrears he owed. The non-resident parent employed delaying tactics to avoid making payments as a result. CSA failed to enforce a deduction from earnings order which they first served on his employer in January 1995. In April 1997 Mrs R’s case was transferred to a second CSA centre so that enforcement action could be taken through the courts. The case reverted to the original centre when the non-resident parent reached an arrears agreement with the second CSA centre (thus avoiding court action). A further deduction from earnings order was issued, which was inappropriate as the non-resident parent was self-employed, and the case was referred back to the second CSA centre in September 1997 for court action. There were delays in bringing the case up to date and, by the time this was done, the non-resident parent had liquidated his business, sold his house and moved abroad. CSA apologised to Mrs R and awarded her £250 for the inconvenience their actions had caused her, and £20 for her telephone costs. They also paid her the £1,925 of maintenance which the non-resident parent had paid but which had been wrongly attributed to the Secretary of State’s account. CSA declined to compensate Mrs R for loss of maintenance as there was no proof that the non-resident parent would have co-operated and because Mrs R remains able to pursue her case through the courts through a reciprocal agreement that exists between the UK and the country in which the non-resident parent now resides.

Case No: C.730/00
Child Support Agency: delays

Despite telling Mr C that they aimed to complete a review of his maintenance assessment within five days of receiving all the necessary information the Child Support Agency (CSA) failed to do so for almost three and a half years, by which time he had had a number of changes of circumstances. CSA subsequently made a fresh maintenance assessment against which Mr C appealed. A tribunal directed CSA to undertake further reviews, taking into account the information that Mr C had given them about his various changes of circumstances. CSA revised his maintenance assessment but failed to reflect all of his changes of circumstances. They were also slow to calculate how much of his debt they might defer as a result of their delays and they sent him conflicting information about the state of his account. CSA were also slow to deal with Mr C’s request for a departure from CSA’s formula for calculating child support maintenance.

After the intervention of the Ombudsman CSA accepted that they should have revised his maintenance assessments to take account of all of the changes of circumstances that he had reported to them. They made him a consolatory payment of £150, agreed to recalculate his maintenance assessments and to consider applying their deferred debt scheme to any resulting arrears. They also gave an assurance that they would refund any overpayment of child support maintenance together with interest for loss of use of such arrears and agreed to consider compensating him for any reasonably incurred legal costs.

Case No: C.816/00
Child Support Agency: errors and delay

The Child Support Agency (CSA) failed to issue a maintenance enquiry form until ten months after receiving Mrs I’s application. The non-resident parent then denied that he was the father of Mrs I’s son although he had being paying child maintenance under a court order since 1982. He asked CSA to arrange a DNA test to decide the issue. CSA, however, took no action on the case for a further 14 months. By that time Mrs I’s son was over 19 years old. CSA closed the case and ignored a complaint from Mrs I. She complained again and CSA apologised for delay but did not explain their failure to address the paternity issue. Mrs I persisted with her complaint and asked for compensation. She had to wait for ten months before her claim was considered and she was offered a consolatory payment only, as it was impossible to quantify any financial loss. After the Ombudsman’s intervention CSA reconsidered the question of compensation and, conceding that on the balance of probabilities the non-resident parent would have been found to be the father of Mrs I’s son, and agreed to consider compensation for financial loss for a period they believed was not covered by the court order. After Mrs I rejected that as insufficient, CSA found that the court order had, in fact, covered the full period during which the non-resident parent might have been liable under a maintenance assessment. The Ombudsman asked CSA to consider whether Mrs I had suffered a financial loss on the basis that a maintenance assessment might have been for a higher amount than the court order. He also asked CSA to consider compensation for the inconvenience caused to Mrs I by their handling of her case. CSA said that as they were unable to obtain sufficient information on which to base a notional assessment, they could not establish that there had been a financial loss. They decided to award Mrs I the sum of £400 in recognition of the gross inconvenience she had suffered from their handling of her case.

Case No: C.913/00
Child Support Agency: misdirection about the Child Support Agency’s jurisdiction and failure to handle properly a subsequent complaint

The Child Support Agency (CSA) failed to take opportunities to inform Mr C and the parent with care, properly and unequivocally, of their jurisdiction in assessing and collecting child support maintenance when the parents had made a separate arrangement for payment. During that time, arrears of child support maintenance due under an assessment made by CSA accrued. CSA then failed, on at least nineteen occasions, to address fully, properly or at all, Mr C’s solicitors’ enquiries about misleading advice to Mr C, which was alleged to have caused the arrears to accrue, and about their jurisdiction to act. CSA also wrongly calculated Mr C’s arrears of maintenance, dealt poorly with maintenance assessment reviews and generally managed his case badly. Despite these numerous failures by CSA, the Ombudsman was unable to find any evidence that Mr C was misdirected. CSA paid Mr C £250 for gross inconvenience, £200 for severe distress and £20 for out-of-pocket expenses. They also paid his full legal costs of £3,948.04 and have undertaken to consider compensating Mr C for the loss of the use of that money. Mr C remains liable for arrears of child support maintenance.

Case No: C.1058/00
Child Support Agency: delay in issuing maintenance enquiry form, in making a maintenance assessment and in enforcing payments of maintenance

Although Miss M applied for maintenance in April 1993 the Child Support Agency (CSA) did not issue a maintenance enquiry form until May 1994. When the non-resident parent (Mr H) did not reply they imposed an interim maintenance assessment in July 1994. However, that assessment was for an incorrect amount and was therefore unenforceable. CSA also failed to consider whether they had sufficient information to convert the interim maintenance assessment into a full assessment, after Mr H had completed and returned an enquiry form in February 1995. Their attempts to establish Mr H’s employment status and his means were unsatisfactory, and their efforts to enforce payment of maintenance due under the interim maintenance assessment lacked conviction. CSA subsequently suspended enforcement procedures because Mr H had become unemployed, although there was evidence to suggest that he had another source of income. CSA asked the Benefits Agency to deduct contributions to maintenance from Mr H’s benefit, but they failed to follow up their request when they did not receive a response. They also failed to follow up the outcome of their referral of suspected fraud by Mr H to the Benefits Agency. CSA’s then Chief Executive sent her personal apologies to Miss M in January 2000. CSA later agreed to make Miss M an advance payment of £602.02, plus interest, against the outstanding arrears of maintenance. They also agreed to pay her £2,036.05 plus interest in compensation for maintenance lost because of the delay in issuing the maintenance enquiry form and £175.50 plus interest for the failure to recover contributions to maintenance for periods when Mr H was in receipt of social security benefit. After the Ombudsman’s intervention CSA agreed to pay Miss M compensation at the correct interim maintenance assessment rate of £99.45 per week for the gap period of the unenforceable interim maintenance assessment. They assured the Ombudsman that they would press ahead with enforcement action against Mr H.

Case No: C.1077/00
Child Support Agency: handling of liability for child support maintenance and shared care of the qualifying child

After Mr J and his wife separated they continued to live in the same house for which Mr J paid the mortgage and other bills. When his ex-wife claimed income support the Child Support Agency (CSA) sent Mr J a maintenance enquiry form in respect of their son. Mr J argued that CSA should allow him ‘shared care’ as he looked after their son for part of the time. CSA found that he did not look after his son for a minimum of two nights per week on average and disallowed shared care. An appeal tribunal later agreed with Mr J and allowed him shared care. The Ombudsman did not find that CSA had mishandled Mr J’s liability for child maintenance but he found that they had delayed dealing with his appeal submission. CSA paid Mr J £50 for gross inconvenience.

Case No: C.1182/00
Child Support Agency: mishandling of a claim for child support maintenance

Ms L, a parent with care, complained that the Child Support Agency (CSA) mishandled her claim for child support maintenance, and in particular that they wrongly terminated her case and failed to collect large arrears of child support maintenance. Ms L said that her ex-husband was unemployed, and might not resume work as a result of ill health, and that CSA should have obtained payments from him while he was working.

The Ombudsman found that there had been substantial and long standing faults in CSA’s handling of Ms L’s affairs and that the case had been closed prematurely. The Ombudsman regarded the Chief Executive’s apologies, the payment of arrears of maintenance, compensatory payment and costs, and the possibility of further consideration in the future, to be a suitable outcome to the investigation of Ms L’s complaint.

Case No: C.1221/00
Child Support Agency: delays and errors in handling an application for child support maintenance

Mr P, a parent with care, complained that the Child Support Agency (CSA) continued to mishandle his case even after a critical report by the Independent Case Examiner. The Ombudsman found that CSA had delayed in taking the necessary steps to obtain deductions from the non-resident parent’s benefits. CSA calculated that as a result Mr P had lost the opportunity to receive £191.71 in maintenance and paid him this amount, together with £21.74 by way of interest. The Ombudsman accepted that Mr P’s case did not meet the criteria for an advance payment of the outstanding arrears which had been identified by the Independent Case Examiner. The Ombudsman also accepted that CSA and the Independent Case Examiner had not acted unreasonably in seeking to bring their correspondence with Mr P to a close, given that he had failed to take advantage of a meeting arranged by them both to discuss his remaining concerns.

Case No: C.1240/00
Child Support Agency: failure to take effective action to collect child support maintenance

Ms H applied to the Child Support Agency (CSA) in September 1993. Initially CSA handled her case satisfactorily, implementing a deduction from earnings order to obtain child support maintenance from Mr X in September 1994. When that order failed to collect child support maintenance CSA failed to investigate and in consequence CSA failed to obtain seven monthly payments of maintenance. When Mr X notified CSA, in September 1995, that he was changing his employer and would be working abroad, CSA failed to obtain from him all of the information that they needed. It was not until November 1998 that CSA considered the possibility that Mr X might be beyond their jurisdiction and in January 1999, before that matter had been properly determined, CSA refused to compensate Ms H for lost child support maintenance because Mr X was not resident in the UK. When CSA subsequently considered Mr X’s residence status they failed to take into account all of the relevant factors and to give due regard to the question of whether his residence in the UK was habitual.

Following the intervention of the Ombudsman, CSA revisited the question of Mr X’s habitual residence in the UK. They determined that although he had been habitually resident and, therefore, had remained within their jurisdiction, his absences from the UK meant that it was unlikely that they could have taken successful enforcement action against him. CSA paid Ms H £1,673.68 of child support maintenance paid by Mr X, that they had previously recovered for the Secretary of State for Social Security, together with interest of £407.49, agreed to make Ms H an ex gratia payment of £2,928.94, with interest and a consolatory payment of £250 for gross inconvenience and £15 for out-of-pocket expenses.

Case No: C.1280/00
Child Support Agency: delays and errors in making maintenance assessments and poor handling of application for an advance lump sum payment of arrears

Mrs X applied for child support maintenance in April 1993 but it was not until 6 August that the Child Support Agency (CSA) sent the non-resident parent (Mr Y) a maintenance enquiry form. Having calculated Mr Y’s income in March 1995 CSA failed to make a full maintenance assessment until January 1999 when they incorrectly used an interim effective date. By that time Mr Y was unemployed and they were only able to collect a contribution in lieu of child support maintenance from his jobseeker’s allowance. In February 1999, at the request of the Independent Case Examiner, CSA brought Mrs X’s case up-to-date, realising and correcting the error in the interim effective date. Mr Y subsequently made several arrears agreements which he failed to honour. In August 2000, CSA corrected numerous errors they had made in Mrs X’s assessments and calculated that Mr X owed a total of £4,085.29. On several occasions CSA considered making Mrs X an advance lump sum payment of the arrears owed by Mr Y but failed to consider properly the effect of their errors on the ability of Mrs X’s case to meet the necessary criteria. CSA also failed to take sufficient care when explaining their handling of the request for an advance lump sum payment, leading Mrs X to think that she was likely to receive a payment only to tell her later that her case did not satisfy all of the criteria.

CSA paid Mrs X £2.51 compensation for lost entitlement to child support maintenance due to their delay in issuing the maintenance enquiry form, £20 for out-of-pocket expenses and £500 for gross inconvenience. They also gave an assurance that they will look again at an advance lump sum payment should her case satisfy the criteria in the future.

Case No: C.1289/00
Child Support Agency: complaint of financial loss due to incorrect advice to continue paying voluntary maintenance

The two parents with care of Mr U’s children applied for child support maintenance in February and September 1996. The Child Support Agency (CSA) made an assessment for the first parent with care in November 1996, but due to deficiencies in the relevant legislation, did not assess the second case until October 1997. The second case could not be backdated due to the rules for cases with more than one parent with care and Mr U could not receive relief for voluntary payments made in the interim. There were delays in making assessments in both cases and CSA failed to deal with much of Mr U’s correspondence adequately. The Ombudsman did not uphold Mr U’s complaint of financial loss because although it was likely that CSA had advised him to continue to make voluntary payments, there was no evidence that they had indicated an amount, and they had reduced the payments which Mr U was to make on the first case until the second case was assessed. CSA acknowledged their errors and delays and agreed to defer arrears amounting to £569.53 and made a consolatory payment of £100 and £15 towards Mr U’s out-of-pocket expenses.

Case No: C.1292/00
Child Support Agency: delay in making and reviewing maintenance assessments and refusal to defer arrears

Mrs T complained that the Child Support Agency (CSA) mishandled her husband’s case by sending him conflicting and confusing notices about the maintenance he was required to pay to two parents with care, Mrs A and Mrs B. She also complained that CSA failed to explain why it had taken them so long to review Mr T’s maintenance liability, that they had unreasonably refused to defer payment of arrears which had consequently accrued, and that they had not replied adequately to her letters of complaint. The Ombudsman criticised CSA for a delay of over five years in assessing how much maintenance Mr T should pay to Mrs B, and for delays in reviewing Mr T’s liability to Mrs A. He also found that CSA had not adequately explained the delays that had occurred. The Ombudsman criticised CSA for their over-rigid interpretation of the deferred debt scheme; their lack of care in calculating the arrears of maintenance which had accrued; and the poor standard of their communications. The Ombudsman welcomed CSA’s agreement, following his intervention, to defer payment of all but £606.64 of the arrears; and to make a consolatory payment of £200 plus £20 towards Mr T’s out-of-pocket expenses in pursuing his case. The then Chief Executive apologised for CSA’s failings.

Case No: C.1327/00
Child Support Agency: delays and errors in dealing with a non-resident parent’s child maintenance affairs

The Ombudsman identified a number of shortcomings in the way the Child Support Agency (CSA) had handled Mr P’s case and upheld his complaint. The Ombudsman found that CSA took over a year to gather the information necessary to make an initial maintenance assessment and then made errors in the calculation of that assessment which were not discovered until they considered the parent with care’s request for a review three months later. Following that review Mr P’s liability more than doubled, but CSA did not recalculate the amount due for the initial payment period with the result that he was told that he had overpaid by £672.50 when the true figure was only £67.54. Those errors and delays were then made worse by CSA’s failure to deal adequately with correspondence from Mr P, and by the issue of incorrect account breakdowns, and demands for payment. The Ombudsman found that other delays had also occurred and that further arrears of maintenance had accumulated as a result. Mr P and the parent with care came to an agreement under which Mr P paid £40 per week direct to her rather than via CSA. CSA closed the case as a result. The amount outstanding at the date of Mr P’s last payment to CSA was £1,634.13. CSA had already acknowledged that they had not served Mr P well and, prior to the Ombudsman’s intervention, had decided to make a consolatory payment of £100 to him for the gross inconvenience he had suffered. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention CSA awarded Mr P a further consolatory payment of £100 together with £25 towards his out-of-pocket expenses. CSA also agreed to reconsider the question of deferment of any remaining arrears should CSA resume collection of maintenance in the future. The then Chief Executive apologised for CSA’s failings.

Case No: C.1362/00
Child Support Agency: delays and errors

The Child Support Agency (CSA) failed to take any action for the first three months after Mrs C applied for child support maintenance. Having received a completed maintenance enquiry form from the non-resident parent, CSA acted reasonably quickly to make a maintenance assessment but failed to take account of his shared care of the qualifying child. Similarly, they sent the non-resident parent a periodic review form in good time for the first periodic review but failed to complete that review for a further two years. They also delayed a change of circumstances review by two years and failed to notice that another periodic review had fallen due in 1996. CSA’s subsequent failure to take proper account of the non-resident parent’s shared care of the qualifying child led to a series of incorrect maintenance assessments. Those assessments, together with CSA’s failure to explain to Mrs C that her income support payments would be abated to reflect any child support maintenance paid to her by the non-resident parent, gave her an unrealistic expectation of the child support maintenance due to her. When CSA finally corrected the mistakes in the maintenance assessments they established that the non-resident parent had not been liable to pay child support maintenance to Mrs C. Despite the intervention of Mrs C’s solicitor and the Member, it was not until the Ombudsman intervened that CSA recognised the nature and extent of their errors. CSA apologised to Mrs C and made her a £250 consolatory payment in recognition of the gross inconvenience they caused her. They also undertook to look again at compensation if Mrs C provides evidence that demonstrates that she lost entitlement to child support maintenance as a result of their initial delay. They also gave an assurance that they will consider compensating her for any legal costs she has incurred as a result of their maladministration.

Case No: C.1370/00
Child Support Agency: delay in obtaining child support maintenance

Ms W applied for child support maintenance in June 1997 but delays and mishandling of her case by the Child Support Agency (CSA) meant that she did not receive any maintenance until February 2000. CSA accepted that their handling of Ms W’s case had been dilatory and that opportunities to progress the case more quickly and effectively had been missed. After the Ombudsman’s intervention CSA agreed to make a lump sum payment of £4,481.63 to Ms W. They also agreed to make a further payment by way of interest. CSA also made Ms W ex gratia payments totalling £170 in respect of gross inconvenience and out-of-pocket expenses. The then Chief Executive apologised for CSA’s failings.

Case No: C.1375/00
Child Support Agency: imposition of a defective interim maintenance assessment and ineffective action to collect and enforce payment of child support maintenance

The Ombudsman upheld Mrs D’s complaint that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had, through their errors and mistakes, failed to collect any child support maintenance from the non-resident parent over a period of five and a half years. CSA imposed an interim maintenance assessment without ensuring that a maintenance enquiry form had been delivered to the non-resident parent. Two deduction from earnings orders under the interim maintenance assessment were imposed but, when the employers concerned failed to comply, CSA took no action against them. After the second deduction from earnings order had failed CSA attempted to trace the non-resident parent (which was unnecessary because they already held a confident address for him) followed by slow and ineffective court action to obtain a liability order. Mrs D complained to the Independent Case Examiner who asked CSA to investigate her case. They found that the interim maintenance assessment was invalid. Mrs D therefore had no entitlement to maintenance under the assessment and CSA cancelled the arrears, ended the court action and discharged a third deduction from earnings order which had been imposed. CSA paid Mrs D £250 compensation for the inconvenience she had suffered and £25 for her telephone costs. As a result of the Ombudsman’s intervention the then Chief Executive apologised personally to Mrs D and CSA paid Mrs D £3,002.02 to compensate for lost child maintenance for two separate periods and £740.55 as interest.

Case No: C.1381/00
Child Support Agency: delays and errors in handling an application for child support maintenance

Mrs M previously received child maintenance under a court order and in May 1993 she applied to the Child Support Agency (CSA) for child support maintenance as she was in receipt of a prescribed benefit. CSA cancelled the court order when they imposed an interim maintenance assessment in September 1993. That assessment was later found to be invalid so CSA could not secure maintenance under it. Although a full maintenance assessment was made at the end of March 1995, CSA did not manage to collect any maintenance from the non-resident parent until September 1998. A total of £816.43 was collected under a deduction from earnings order but payments ceased in April 1999. The Ombudsman found that Mrs M’s case was very poorly handled by CSA. Although the non-resident parent had shown a reluctance to co-operate with CSA, they should have been able to obtain maintenance from him much earlier than they did. Mrs M did not suffer any financial loss due to CSA’s maladministration while she was in receipt of benefit, as she was paid her full entitlement to income support which exceeded the amount of her maintenance assessments at the material time. CSA acknowledged that they failed to tell Mrs M when her benefit claim ended that she could either request the closure of her case or state that she wished for her application to continue. The Ombudsman found that CSA’s inability to collect further maintenance after Mrs M’s benefit had ceased until the closure of her case was due to the non-resident parent’s lack of co-operation, rather than the result of further maladministration. In view of that CSA were unable to make a lump sum advance payment of the arrears that remain outstanding. The Ombudsman had no grounds to challenge that decision. CSA made Mrs M an ex gratia payment of £180 in respect of gross inconvenience and out-of-pocket expenses. The then Chief Executive apologised for CSA’s failings.

Case No: C.1382/00
Child Support Agency: failure to take adequate enforcement action to secure regular child support maintenance

In 1994 Ms M applied to the Child Support Agency (CSA) for child support maintenance for her son. There was uncertainty about the address of the non-resident parent (Mr O), and CSA received no response to letters they sent to his last known address. On 30 April 1995 CSA imposed an interim maintenance assessment, however no substantive action was taken until September 1995. CSA received a revised address for Mr O in February 1996, but did not attempt to contact Mr O at that address until January 1997. Enforcement action then proceeded and a liability order was granted in May.

Enforcement action was suspended since there was still doubt as to where Mr O lived. Specialist trace action was requested in August, but no action was taken for a further two months. The use of bailiffs between October 1997 and May 1998 proved ineffective. Then in July 1998 Mr O phoned CSA and agreed to supply them with the information they needed, and make regular payments of child support maintenance. He did neither, and bailiff action was resumed in October 1998. When that again proved unsuccessful CSA began committal proceedings. At the court hearing in July 1999 Mr O received a six week prison sentence, suspended on condition he made regular future maintenance payments.

The Chief Executive of CSA acknowledged there were delays in the handling of the case between November 1994 and January 1997. She apologised for those delays and for the periods of inactivity which had occurred prior to January 1997. She apologised personally to Ms M. CSA also awarded her a consolatory payment of £150 for gross inconvenience and £30 to reimburse her out-of-pocket expenses.

Case No: C.1392/00
Child Support Agency: mishandling of an application for child support maintenance

Ms M, a non-resident parent, complained that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had mishandled her case, causing her to suffer severe stress which in turn had affected her performance at work. The Ombudsman found that there had been a number of delays and minor errors in the handling of Ms M’s case but that many of the delays had been caused by the nature of the process rather than by any maladministration on the part of CSA. The Ombudsman also found that CSA could have handled the enquiries from her Member of Parliament more effectively than they did. He partially upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Case No: C.1417/00
Child Support Agency: mishandling and delays of reviews of child support liability

The Child Support Agency (CSA) delayed reviewing Mr K’s child support assessment and a deduction from earnings order to collect his child support liability, which caused arrears to accrue. It took CSA nine months to review Mr K’s liability after he had told CSA in November 1997 that he had been laid off work for a week. CSA incorrectly reduced his assessment to nil, cancelled the deduction from earnings order and refunded Mr K £1,938.20. A month later CSA carried out outstanding reviews which were backdated and added arrears of £2,819.78 to Mr K’s account. CSA decided to defer all but the last six months of those arrears. At the final stages of the Ombudsman’s investigation CSA uncovered a number of errors in Mr K’s assessments which, when corrected, added an extra £230.64 to his arrears. The Ombudsman criticised CSA for all those errors and delays. After the Ombudsman’s intervention, CSA reduced the recovery of Mr K’s arrears to the minimum amount of £5.30 a week. CSA also paid Mr K consolatory payments of £350 for gross inconvenience and £50 for distress, and reimbursed costs of £48.

Case No: C.1449/00
Child Support Agency: mishandling of child support maintenance liability

In September 1993 Mr C’s former wife applied to the Child Support Agency (CSA) for child support maintenance for their daughter. CSA’s dealings with Mr C during the following six and a half years until February 2000 were not as efficient or effective as they should have been. The Ombudsman did not uphold all aspects of Mr C’s complaint;