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
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY continued
Case No. C.850/99
Benefits Agency: alleged misleading advice and mishandling in connection with entitlement to retirement pension
Mrs Y complained that the Benefits Agency (BA) had initially misled her by not telling her that she might pay additional voluntary contributions in order to enhance her entitlement to retirement pension and that they had then misled her further into paying additional national insurance contributions in the belief that she would receive a retirement pension from her 60th birthday. The Ombudsman's investigation found that BA had acted properly in accordance with their policy at the time not to advise claimants as to the possibility of paying additional voluntary contributions unless they had specifically asked about them, which Mrs Y had not. Furthermore, that Mrs Y had misconstrued BA's letter as to the effect of the payment of additional voluntary contributions on the date from which her retirement pension would be paid - a misunderstanding which was unfortunately reinforced by a member of BA's own staff. BA agreed to consider compensating Mrs Y should she have undertaken financial commitments on the strength of that assurance. BA also paid Mrs Y arrears of retirement pension of £1,976.15, with £240.92 in compensation for its late payment, and a consolatory payment of £100 because they had failed properly to calculate the amount of retirement pension due to her.
Back to top
Case No. C.863/99
Benefits Agency and Independent Tribunal Service: delays in providing information to an appeal tribunal and in making arrangements for the hearing
In December 1995 Mr H appealed against a decision by the Benefits Agency (BA) not to award incapacity credits on the ground that he was regarded as not incapable of work. Eventually, after his representative had submitted new medical evidence, a tribunal allowed Mr H's appeal in October 1998. BA promptly paid arrears of benefit of £4,410.67. As a result of the Ombudsman's intervention both BA and the Independent Tribunal Service apologised for their respective contributions to the avoidable delays. BA made Mr H an ex gratia payment of £317.17 for the loss of use of his arrears together with a consolatory payment of £100 for gross inconvenience.
Back to top
Case No. C.892/99
Benefits Agency: delay in resolving entitlement to benefit
The complainant applied for incapacity benefit (IB) in February 1998. Her claim was disqualified because her national insurance contributions (NICs) history was insufficient to qualify for IB. She applied to the Secretary of State for formal determination of her NICs history. In June 1998 DSS asked the complainant's former employer for information. The Department of Social Security (DSS) arranged an inspection of the employer's records because the employer's reply was inadequate. After the inspection had been completed they wrote to the complainant confirming that her contributions history did not satisfy the criteria for IB. The Ombudsman found evidence that DSS had not communicated well with the complainant and had taken too long to arrange an inspection of the employer's records for which DSS apologised.
Back to top
Case No. C.902/99
Benefits Agency: appeal hearing delayed by delays in investigating a suspected fraud
The Ombudsman considered it reasonable for the Benefits Agency to have recommended that the hearing of Miss X's appeals against the withdrawal of her entitlement to income support and severe disablement allowance should be postponed pending a decision on action following the completion of a fraud investigation. He also found that the time taken to complete that investigation had been justified and that its thoroughness had been in Miss X's best interests. He therefore did not uphold her complaint of unjustified delay and was satisfied that, as she had asked for an adjournment once a date had been fixed, the responsibility for any further delay rested with her.
Back to top
Case No. C.915/99
Benefits Agency: errors and delays in determining the housing cost element of a claim to income support
Although the Ombudsman found that there had been a number of errors in the handling of the housing costs element of Mr X's claim to income support, for which the Benefits Agency apologised and made him a consolatory payment of £100, the Ombudsman found no grounds for upholding Mr X's complaint that the Benefits Agency's delays in determining his entitlement with respect to roof repairs had led to the repossession of his property. The Ombudsman found that the eventual repossession of Mr X's property had been caused by his own failure to pay in full the service charges levied both before his first claim to income support and after having received monies for that purpose as part of his income support; and that the net shortfall of £99.37 while Mr X pursued his claim for assistance with the roof repairs successfully through the appellate system represented only a fraction of the total arrears which led his lender to repossess the property.
Back to top
Case No. C.948/99
Benefits Agency and Independent Tribunal Service: delay and misconceived appeal submission and premature arrangement of a tribunal
In September 1997 Mr R appealed against the Employment Service's decision that he had failed without good cause to apply for a job vacancy, which led to suspension of his jobseeker's allowance. He made a separate claim for jobseeker's allowance hardship payment which was refused by the Benefits Agency (BA). An appeal tribunal arranged for 27 March 1998 had to be adjourned because BA's submission incorrectly related to the hardship payment decision. BA sent the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) a fresh submission in July telling them that before arranging another tribunal hearing they should link it with a related Employment Service submission which was being prepared. The Employment Service submission was despatched but did not reach ITS. Nevertheless, ITS arranged a second tribunal hearing, which Mr R attended, when they mistakenly placed BA's first submission before the tribunal. The tribunal had to be adjourned again. After the Ombudsman's intervention a third tribunal convened on 9 February 1999 and Mr R's appeal was allowed. Jobseeker's allowance arrears of £512.57 were paid on 17 March. ITS made Mr R an ex gratia payment of £150 as compensation for gross inconvenience, and BA paid £29.03 as compensation for loss of use of benefit.
Back to top
Case No. C.989/99
Benefits Agency: disclosure of information to a third party which led to severe mental and physical distress and gross embarrassment
When Mr W made his claim for jobseeker's allowance he asked that his ex-employer should not be contacted because he did not want his current whereabouts disclosed. He said that he had left the Midlands because he believed that he was in physical danger if he remained there. The Benefits Agency (BA) contacted his ex-employer giving them the BA local office telephone number. When Mr W discovered this he became very anxious, requiring medication and counselling. He ceased to claim jobseeker's allowance and his doctor certified that he was unfit for work. Mr W said that he believed that this disclosure of information to his ex-employer left him at risk of assault by unnamed individuals who had attacked him on a previous occasion. The Ombudsman upheld Mr W's complaint that Mr W had suffered severe mental distress as a result of BA's contact with his ex-employer but did not find evidence of a direct link between BA's actions and physical assaults he later suffered. The Ombudsman also upheld Mr W's complaint that he had been caused gross embarrassment by BA's disclosure. BA made a payment of £250 in total in respect of the mental distress caused by their maladministration, and £100 for the gross embarrassment their actions caused Mr W.
Back to top
Case No. C.1002/99
Benefits Agency: delays in processing an application for retirement pension
In July 1998 Mrs R asked about her entitlement to retirement pension but her local Benefits Agency (BA) office were unable to process an application because they had no access to individual national insurance contributions records between June 1998 and January 1999 during a major up-rating of the National Insurance Recording System. As soon their access to Mrs R's records was restored BA calculated Mrs R's retirement pension entitlement, and paid her arrears, in January 1999. Under wider arrangements announced by the Secretary of State for Social Security, BA said they would consider making a consolatory payment of £10 to Mrs R.
Back to top
Case No. C.1027/99
Benefits Agency: alleged discrimination and mishandling of a claim to disability living allowance
Mr X, whose initial claim for disability living allowance had been disallowed, complained that the Benefits Agency (BA) had lost his file, had repeatedly asked him for the same information and had discriminated against him because he was HIV positive. The Ombudsman's investigation found that that the loss of the file, although careless, did not hinder BA's later action on the case and that, while it appeared to Mr X that BA were repeatedly asking him and his doctor for the same information, they needed the latest evidence as to his medical condition in order to give proper consideration to his claim. Although there were certain shortcomings in BA's handling of Mr X's case, the Ombudsman's investigation revealed no evidence of discrimination against Mr X.
Back to top
Case No. C.1342/99
Benefits Agency: misleading advice about limitation on backdating of invalid care allowance
Mrs X obtained an invalid care allowance claim pack in early 1997. Mr and Mrs X subsequently enquired about Mrs X's self employed income, and by their account were advised that they could make a retrospective claim of up to twelve months. Mrs X delayed making her claim until February 1998 when she asked for it to be backdated to 1 February 1997. However regulations came into force on 7 April 1997 limiting backdating of claims to three months. The Benefits Agency (BA) awarded Mrs X the allowance from 1 December 1997. Mrs X appealed to a Social Security Appeal Tribunal. The tribunal upheld the adjudication officer's decision. In November 1998 BA recognised that they might have misdirected Mr and Mrs X. When this was formally considered BA decided that there was no "conclusive evidence" of misdirection and refused to make her a compensation payment for the entitlement she had lost. It was only after the Ombudsman became involved that BA realised that the test they should have applied when considering possible misdirection was that of "the balance of probability". BA reconsidered the special payment decision and paid Mrs X £1,452.90 for her loss of statutory entitlement to invalid care allowance, £38.56 for loss of use of that benefit and a consolatory payment of £50 for gross inconvenience. BA also awarded Mrs X the appropriate national insurance contribution credits for the period covered by the special payment.
Back to top
Case No. C.1382/99
Benefits Agency: failure to make disability living allowance payments and delay in reviewing decisions
The Benefits Agency (BA) awarded Mrs F disability living allowance from 28 October 1994 for life and they asked a local BA office to pay the benefit on top of her existing income support payments from 1 February 1995. The local office received but did not implement those instructions. However in January 1995 they did increase Mrs F's income support payments to include both disability and severe disability premiums. For the next three years Mrs F wrongly assumed that that increase was her disability living allowance payments. Once BA realised, in early 1998, that disability living allowance was not in payment they sent Mrs F a payment book but only paid 12 months' worth of arrears because they said she had not demonstrated good cause for not contacting them about the non-payment. Over the next few months the Citizens Advice Bureau wrote to ask BA to consider paying the arrears in full. BA did not always reply to their correspondence and they unduly delayed consideration of the backdating question. BA later decided to pay all of the disability living allowance arrears that had accrued and they also backdated the award of both income support premiums. BA made ex gratia payments totalling £930.27 representing interest for loss of use of those benefit payments, plus a consolatory payment of £50.
Back to top
Case No. C.1407/99
Benefits Agency: delays in handling a request for leave to review an earlier medical appeal tribunal decision
The Ombudsman upheld Mr L's complaint that the Benefits Agency (BA) and BA Medical Services had seriously delayed referring to a tribunal Mr L's request for leave to review a previous tribunal decision (on the grounds of "unforeseen aggravation" of his disablement). BA agreed to make ex gratia payments totalling £61.48 for gross inconvenience and out of pocket expenses. They also agreed to consider compensating Mr L, were he to succeed in his substantive appeal, for any delayed payment of arrears of benefit which might arise.
Back to top
Case No. C.26/00
Benefits Agency: misleading retirement pension forecast
The Ombudsman accepted that an earnings-related retirement pension forecast which Mr X had received from the Benefits Agency in 1993 had been misleading in that it had underestimated that proportion of Mr X's total earnings-related pension attributable to his occupational pension scheme (the contracted-out deduction) and so had overestimated the proportion of additional pension payable by the state. However, the Ombudsman concluded that Mr X could not have increased his earnings-related additional pension if he had joined a personal pension scheme instead of remaining in the state earnings-related scheme. The Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency apologised for the delay in dealing with some of Mr X's correspondence and confirmed that the Agency were taking steps to remedy the misleading way in which their pension forecasts are presented.
Back to top
Case No. C.1064/96
Child Support Agency: mishandling of a non-resident parent's child maintenance affairs
The Ombudsman did not uphold Mr X's complaint that he had continued paying maintenance in respect of his daughter on the instructions of the Child Support Agency (CSA) who had then reneged on their undertaking to offset the resulting overpayment against maintenance due for his son. Mr X also complained that CSA unreasonably refused to accept his statements about the amount of maintenance he had paid to the parent with care of his son. The Ombudsman was satisfied that CSA had reached their decision on that matter without maladministration. The Ombudsman found delays and mistakes by CSA in handling Mr X's case; and a poor standard of correspondence. CSA apologised for the identified shortcomings.
Back to top
Case No. C.79/99
Child Support Agency: delays in undertaking a periodical review resulting in the accumulation of substantial arrears
The Ombudsman upheld Mr X's complaint that a delay by the Child Support Agency of more than two-and-a-half years in completing a periodical review had caused him to accumulate arrears of more than £3,000. The Child Support Agency accepted that they had been at fault. They apologised to Mr X and made ex gratia payments to him of £150 in compensation for the gross inconvenience which they had caused and £10 for his administrative expenses. They also eventually agreed to defer arrears totalling £2,744.30 so long as he complies with the standard requirement to make regular maintenance payments.
Back to top
Case No. C.212/99
Child Support Agency: mishandling of an application for child support maintenance
Mr X complained that the Child Support Agency (CSA) and the Benefits Agency (BA) failed to investigate properly his allegations that his former wife (a non-resident parent) had undeclared income and that she was claiming benefit fraudulently. The Ombudsman found that CSA had taken no action on the case for long periods of time and that they did not treat Mr X's allegations with sufficient vigour or seriousness. They delayed referring the case to BA. BA interviewed the non-resident parent who withdrew her claim to income support. BA decided not to continue with their fraud investigation on the grounds that it was not cost-effective to do so. The Ombudsman found no grounds on which to question that decision. BA carried out a second investigation into the non-resident parent's entitlement to family credit. The Ombudsman found that BA had carried out that investigation with considerable vigour and he found no reason to question BA's conclusion. CSA made Mr X consolatory payments totalling £200 and they also paid him £10 towards his out-of-pocket expenses. The then Permanent Secretary of the Department of Social Security apologised for CSA's failings.
Back to top
Case No. C.370/99
Child Support Agency: failure to offset payments made under a court order against initial arrears of child support maintenance
The Ombudsman found that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had mishandled the issue of Mr X's liability for arrears of child maintenance arising during the initial period before the maintenance assessment had been made. Mr X had paid £550 a month maintenance under a Sheriff Court's interim aliment order, made in September 1993, which did not specify whether or not the payment was for the benefit of the children. Mr X told CSA that £200 a month of the £550 was for the children. CSA made a maintenance assessment in March 1994, and asked Mr X to pay £1,616.41 arrears for the initial period dating back to the effective date in October 1993. CSA refused to offset Mr X's maintenance payments against the £1,616.41 arrears, on the grounds that they had no jurisdiction over payments under a court order and that the parent with care had said she had received no child maintenance during the initial period. In April 1995 Mr X paid £823 in respect of CSA arrears under a Separation Minute of Agreement, but he did not clearly inform CSA about the payment. In February 1996 he sent CSA confirmation by the Sheriff Court that the aliment order was intended to benefit the children but CSA did not change their decision on the arrears owed by Mr X. CSA made no attempt to collect the arrears until December 1997. CSA did not look into Mr X's contention that he had paid the arrears under his separation agreement. In February 1998, however, having received confirmation from the parent with care that she had received maintenance for the children during the initial period, CSA agreed that Mr X owed no arrears, but in July they told him that he owed £411.81, the difference between the £200 a month he had paid for child maintenance and the full amount owed. The Chief Executive of CSA apologised to Mr X for the inconvenience he had suffered, acknowledged that he had paid the arrears in full and gave an assurance that the outstanding arrears remaining on his account (which had been suspended) would eventually be written off.
Back to top
Case No. C.414/99
Child Support Agency: failure to consider the welfare of all the children concerned in deciding to pursue paternity action
The Ombudsman found that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had failed specifically to consider the welfare of the qualifying child and of Mr X's daughter of his second marriage when they decided to take action in the magistrates' court to establish Mr X's paternity of the qualifying child. CSA subsequently sent evasive and incorrect replies to correspondence from Mr X and his solicitors raising the question of the children's welfare. CSA considered the welfare of the children retrospectively and decided that neither child would have been adversely affected by the court action, but CSA omitted to tell Mr X about that decision until five months after it had been taken, by which time the Member had referred the case to the Ombudsman. The investigation found that quick and correct answers by CSA would not have deterred the solicitors in their attempts to contest Mr X's liability for child support maintenance. The Chief Executive apologised for the incorrect answers provided by CSA to Mr X, and CSA suspended the arrears of child support maintenance he owed in recognition of their delay during the initial stages of the case.
Back to top
Case No. C.487/99
Child Support Agency: miscalculation of maintenance liability and failure to consider lump sum refunds of overpayments
The Child Support Agency (CSA) determined that Mr E had overpaid differing amounts of maintenance. CSA made some small lump sum refunds to him but failed to consider refunding larger overpayments to him in the same way. They decided to reduce future maintenance payments instead and bombarded Mr E with a series of computer generated payment schedules which did not explain why revised payments were being charged or why refunds were inappropriate. The schedules also contained errors. CSA produced more differing arrears calculations even after the Ombudsman's intervention. CSA paid Mr E £200 in compensation for gross inconvenience and £30 towards his out of pocket expenses.
Back to top
Case No. C.505/99
Child Support Agency: delay and errors in reviewing maintenance assessments
The Child Support Agency (CSA) sent Mr L an assessment in January 1994 for maintenance for his daughter. In March 1995 they put their papers into storage before completing a periodic review. They retrieved their papers in October 1997 but in making fresh assessments in February 1998 they ignored the effect of legislative changes on the calculation of housing costs arising from endowment insurance premiums. Under the new assessments, Mr L's maintenance liability decreased. However, CSA calculated that he still owed £1,634.09 in arrears. He disputed the arrears, stating that his former wife had agreed to accept a lesser amount, but CSA could not recognise that agreement and took action to recover the arrears. In February 1999 CSA identified the flaws in the February 1998 review and revised the assessments. They calculated that Mr L had overpaid maintenance by £38.45, which was offset against his future liability. After the Ombudsman had intervened, the Chief Executive of CSA apologised to Mr L for CSA's shortcomings.
Back to top
Case No. C.545/99
Child Support Agency: delay and mishandling of an application for child support maintenance and in taking a decision about an alleged voluntary payment of child support maintenance
It took over 18 months for the Child Support Agency (CSA) to make full maintenance assessments by which time substantial arrears of child support maintenance were owing to Ms H, the then parent with care. After the involvement of CSA's Independent Case Examiner and the Ombudsman respectively, CSA made special payments of £165 (for poor handling and out of pocket expenses) and £7,570.36 (representing arrears of child support maintenance, with interest) to Ms H. They subsequently made her a further payment of £475.53, including interest, arising from the use of a wrong effective date. The Ombudsman criticised the manner in which CSA, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Social Security, had considered a payment of £1,000 made by the then non-resident parent to Ms H, and said by him to have been made in lieu of child support maintenance. CSA undertook to review their decision in the light of any further evidence which emerging from proposed discussions with both parents.
Back to top
Case No. C.620/99
Child Support Agency: refusal to defer arrears of child support maintenance
The Ombudsman upheld a complaint by Mr L, that he had accumulated substantial arrears of maintenance as a result of delays by the Child Support Agency (CSA) in completing a periodical review of his maintenance liability. CSA agreed to defer arrears of £6,387.93 which had accrued as a result of their delay in undertaking the periodical review. They made ex gratia awards to Mr L of £150 for gross inconvenience and £700 in recognition of the stress he had suffered. CSA also paid Mr L £20 towards his out-of-pocket expenses. The Chief Executive apologised for CSA's failings.
Back to top
Case No. C.665/99
Child Support Agency: delay in reviewing liability to pay child support maintenance
The Ombudsman upheld the complaint by Mrs Y, a non-resident parent, that she had accumulated arrears as a result of delays by the Child Support Agency (CSA) in completing a periodical review of her maintenance liability, that she had been given conflicting information by CSA about whether or not she was in arrears and that they had failed to respond to her requests for information. CSA agreed to defer arrears of £925.12 which had accrued as a result of their delay in undertaking the periodical review; and they made ex gratia payments to Mrs Y of £150 in recognition of the inconvenience they had caused her and £30 to cover the cost of her telephone calls to them.
Back to top
Case No. C.669/99
Child Support Agency: mishandling of two claims for maintenance allegedly causing severe distress to the non-resident parent's family
The Ombudsman upheld some aspects of Mr X's complaint although he did not find made out his complaint that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had failed properly to consider the welfare of the children of his present relationship when assessing maintenance payable in respect of children by two other relationships. The Ombudsman found that CSA had poorly handled the case and had been slow to carry out a review. He did not find that CSA's mishandling of the cases caused emotional distress to Mr X's family but did find that the mishandling aggravated pre-existing difficulties. Furthermore, he did not find that CSA had acted maladministratively in not halting their enquiries when requested. CSA apologised to Mr X for their poor performance and made an ex gratia payment of £50 in recognition of the severe distress to which they had contributed. CSA also made a £100 payment in respect of gross inconvenience caused by their maladministration, and deferred £4,440.22 of Mr X's child support maintenance arrears.
Back to top
Case No. C.694/99
Child Support Agency: delays and errors in securing child support maintenance
Ms W applied to the Child Support Agency (CSA) in November 1996. The absent parent returned the maintenance enquiry form within three months of that application but a maintenance assessment was not made for a further nine months, and child support maintenance (of less than the amount specified by the maintenance assessment) was not collected until January 1998. CSA imposed a deduction from earnings order but that was circumvented by the absent parent giving up work for a short period of time. Pursuit of child support maintenance was erroneously suspended and was not reactivated until November 1998 when a second deductions from earnings order was issued, and from that month CSA began to collect child support maintenance. CSA paid Ms W compensation of £2,570.43 for child support maintenance foregone, £177.76 for the loss of use of that money, and a total of £210 in consolation for severe distress, gross inconvenience and expenses.
Back to top
Case No. C.700/99
Child Support Agency: delayed interview and assessment reviews, failure to reply to enquiries
The Child Support Agency (CSA) undertook several reviews of the complainant's maintenance assessment but poor management of the case and failure to secure completed review forms from his former wife led to considerable delays. The complainant contacted CSA several times because he believed that he had overpaid maintenance. CSA did not respond decisively. The complainant made other enquiries but not all received a reply. The complainant also requested a local interview but there was a significant delay before one was arranged. CSA acknowledged their shortcomings and made ex gratia payments totalling £225 in respect of gross inconvenience and out of pocket expenses.
Back to top
Case No. C.748/99
Child Support Agency: delay in completing a periodical review, causing substantial arrears to accrue
Mr and Mrs A complained that the Child Support Agency (CSA) failed to carry out a periodical review of Mr A's maintenance assessment, due in March 1997, until November 1997. The review raised the assessment from the minimum prescribed of £4.80 per week to £64.54 per week, and arrears of over £3,000 accrued. Mr and Mrs A had not been able to budget for such a large amount and were caused distress. CSA mishandled Mr A's case from the beginning. They made mistakes in the initial assessment, failed to set up accounts, gave him inadequate explanations for their calculations, made inappropriate enquiries of Mrs A's employers and only belatedly took account of voluntary payments he had made. CSA apologised and paid Mr A £60 to compensate him for gross inconvenience and out-of-pocket expenses. They agreed to defer all but the last six months of the arrears that had accrued because of their delays and errors. However, Mr A himself failed to declare income from an army pension and the arrears accruing because of that were left for him to meet.
Back to top
Case No. C.806/99
Child Support Agency: delays and errors in securing child support maintenance
Ms Z applied to the Child Support Agency (CSA) in October 1993. An interim maintenance assessment was made in June 1994. The interim maintenance assessment was incorrectly cancelled, re-instated, and then found to be defective, without enforcement action having been taken. As a result of these errors a period of unenforceable child support maintenance was created. A corrected interim maintenance assessment was made in July 1997 and in August a deduction from earnings order was implemented. Ms Z was not told that child support maintenance payments ceased when the absent parent left his employment in April 1998. A full maintenance assessment was made in November 1998. CSA paid Ms Z compensation of £13,933.37 as a lump sum payment of arrears for the period between February 1995 and July 1998, plus an additional £1,632.89 for loss of use of those arrears. CSA later made a further compensation payment of £1,676.44 for the period between June 1994 and February 1995 when the interim maintenance assessment was unenforceable. A consolatory payment of £160 was paid for inconvenience and out of pocket expenses. An error was made in the calculation of the first compensation payment and the later calculation of the full maintenance assessment revealed that Ms Z had been overcompensated, although an overpayment would also have resulted had the interim maintenance assessment been properly implemented. CSA subsequently failed to recover the overpayment from the later compensation payments.
Back to top
Case No. C.956/99
Child Support Agency: erroneous imposition of a deduction from earnings order and failure to offer adequate compensation
The Ombudsman upheld Mr X's complaint that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had been incorrect in imposing a deduction from earnings order to collect arrears of child support maintenance which he had been paying by agreement with CSA direct to the parent with care. CSA failed to take account of protests by Mr X and his solicitors about the deductions from his earnings and handled correspondence badly. CSA also failed to address Mr X's request for compensation thoroughly until after the Ombudsman's intervention. The Chief Executive apologised to Mr X for the poor standard of service he had received. CSA repaid to Mr X the overpayments of child support maintenance he had made under the deduction from earnings order. They also paid him £832.04 for the solicitors' fees he had incurred in pursuing his case, £54.36 interest for loss of use of the overpayments, £102 reimbursement of the costs of the deduction from earnings order and £150 in recognition of the gross inconvenience he had suffered.
Back to top
Case No. C.959/99
Child Support Agency: sending inaccurate and misleading letter to a non-resident parent's Member of Parliament
The Ombudsman upheld Mr X's complaint that the Child Support Agency had sent an inaccurate letter to his Member of Parliament which had misleadingly implied that Mr X was trying to avoid meeting his maintenance liability as a non-resident parent. The Chief Executive apologised for the errors in the letter which she said had arisen as a result of the Child Support Agency's failure to follow their own internal consultative arrangements when preparing the draft.
Back to top
Case No. C.981/99
Child Support Agency: delay in reviewing liability to pay child support maintenance
The Ombudsman upheld that part of the complaint which Ms X had made on behalf of Mr Y, a non-resident parent, relating to the arrears which he had accumulated as a result of the Child Support Agency's (CSA) delays in carrying out a periodical review of his maintenance liability. The Ombudsman also criticised CSA's handling of correspondence. However, he could not uphold Ms X's complaint that CSA had been inflexible and unreasonable in their pursuit of Mr Y's arrears as he found that they had acted within the parameters set by their internal guidelines. CSA offered to enter into an arrears deferral agreement for £2,365.22 with Mr Y and made they made him an ex gratia consolatory payment of £200 in recognition of the stress and gross inconvenience caused to him by their delay.
Back to top
Case No. C.1044/99
Child Support Agency: mishandling of an application for child support maintenance
The Child Support Agency (CSA) badly mishandled Mrs X's application for child support maintenance. Her case suffered from long periods of inaction, a lack of direction, mistakes and poor decisions. The Ombudsman also criticised CSA's handling of correspondence and their delay in arranging an interview which Mrs X had requested. After the Ombudsman's intervention CSA made Mrs X a consolatory payment of £200; replaced lost child support maintenance of £126.85 and paid interest of £21.29 on that sum; reimbursed communication costs of £20; and transferred maintenance arrears of £3,235.78 from accounts due to the Secretary of State to those due to Mrs X. The Chief Executive of CSA apologised for their poor performance.
Back to top
Case No. C.1067/99
Child Support Agency: errors and delays
The Ombudsman upheld the complaint by Mrs X that the Child Support Agency's (CSA) delays and mistakes had caused her financial loss, particularly as a result of the imposition of an invalid interim maintenance assessment and their subsequent failures to pursue the non-resident parent for arrears while he was in paid employment. The Ombudsman also found that CSA had failed to make minimum deductions from the non-resident parent's income support at times when they should have done so. The Chief Executive apologised for CSA's errors and CSA agreed to consider any objective evidence which Mrs X might submit to support her claim that their mistakes have caused her stress. CSA also made ex gratia payments to Mrs X totalling £3,718.78 and consisting of a lump sum payment of arrears of £2,968.31, compensation of £121.89 for lost opportunities to receive minimum contributions from the non-resident parent's income support, £413.58 as interest for the loss of use of the arrears and minimum contributions, £65 to reimburse her postage and telephone costs and £150 in consolation for the gross inconvenience which CSA had caused to her.
Back to top
Case No. C.1157/99
Child Support Agency: delays in calculating and enforcing the payment of child support maintenance
The Ombudsman found that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had unnecessarily delayed making an interim maintenance assessment after telling Ms X that they had decided to take such a course of action and that they then unnecessarily delayed taking enforcement action. The Ombudsman criticised CSA for misleading Ms X by wrongly asserting that a review could not be carried out while an appeal was outstanding; for their subsequent delay in implementing the child support appeal tribunal's directions; and for their total confusion over the amount of the outstanding arrears. Following the Ombudsman's intervention CSA made a lump sum payment to Ms X of £6,238.87, which represented the arrears owing up to 2 March 1998. They also made her an ex gratia payment of £848.59 for the loss of use of those arrears, a consolatory payment of £200 in recognition of the distress caused to her by their errors and a payment of £30 to compensate her for her telephone and postage costs. CSA also agreed to pay Ms X any remaining arrears from 3 March 1998 onwards once the outcome of her outstanding appeal is known.
Back to top
Case No. C.1278/99
Child Support Agency: failure to take action on a request for a review or to follow up an employer's failure to comply with a deduction from earnings order
The Ombudsman upheld Mr X's complaint that the Child Support Agency (CSA) had ignored for more than three years the request which he had made for a review as soon as he had received his full maintenance assessment. The Ombudsman also upheld his complaint that CSA had subsequently failed to collect the maintenance payments due under a deduction from earnings order but the Ombudsman was satisfied that Mr X had not thereby been financially disadvantaged. The Chief Executive apologised for CSA's errors, CSA completed the outstanding reviews and they made an ex gratia payment of £100 to Mr X in recognition of the gross inconvenience which their errors had caused.
Back to top
OFFICE OF WATER SERVICES
Case No. C.815/99
Alleged failure to give proper consideration to a complaint against a water company
In the summer of 1998 Mrs A telephoned the Office of Water Services (OFWAT) several times concerning a complaint she had about a water company, which she had already raised without success in 1997 with the relevant regional customer service committee. OFWAT initially concluded, on the basis of information given to them by telephone by the water company, that their intervention would be inappropriate because the matters were likely to be resolved by imminent legal proceedings. Mrs A disputed that but in the absence of a written statement of complaint from her OFWAT took no further action. The Ombudsman found that in view of the fact that Mr and Mrs A were in contention with the water company about several matters it was reasonable of OFWAT to have expected written clarification. As a result of the Ombudsman's intervention OFWAT received a written statement of complaint and began an investigation.
Back to top
Previous < Contents
|
