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
INDEPENDENT TRIBUNAL SERVICE
For cases involving the Independent Tribunal Service and the Benefits Agency, see C.97/98 (pages 15 and 117), C.514/99 (page 194), C.567/99 (page 194), C.628/99 (page 195), C.863/99 (page 199), C.948/99 (page 200) and C.1407/99 (page 203).
Case No. C.871/99
Loss of appeal papers and failure to reply to correspondence
The Ombudsman found that Miss X's case had been very poorly handled by the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS). After a Social Security Commissioner had ordered a fresh hearing of Miss X's case ITS mislaid her papers and so were responsible for an unnecessary delay of 28 months before it was heard by a disability appeal tribunal; and during the intervening period ITS failed to reply to letters from Miss X's representatives. As a result of the Ombudsman's investigation ITS apologised to Miss X, made her an ex gratia consolatory payment of £150 and agreed to pay any legal costs she might have incurred as a direct result of their delay and which were not covered by legal aid.
Case No. C.889/99
Mishandling of an application for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioners
Mr X complained that the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) failed to reply to his application for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioners, and failed to reply to letters from his representative asking about progress. He said that ITS's failure to process his application had caused unnecessary delay in resolving his entitlement to industrial injuries disablement benefit. ITS acknowledged that they delayed dealing with Mr X's application for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioners; they also accepted that they took no action on specific letters sent by the representative. ITS apologised to Mr X; they made a compensatory payment of £150 to him; and agreed to consider compensation for the photocopying, postage and telephone costs that he incurred. ITS also agreed to consider further compensation should Mr X be successful in his appeal or if any subsequent appeal should result in a backdated awarded of industrial injuries disablement benefit.
Back to top
Case No. C.945/99
Mishandling of an appeal to a medical appeal tribunal
The Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) agreed that lengthy delays had occurred in this case: they failed to notify the outcome of a setting aside application, to convene a fresh hearing and to reply to correspondence requesting information about the application. ITS did not transfer computer records when the papers were sent to a different office and filed the case away before its completion. The outstanding appeal did not come to light until the complaint to the Ombudsman. ITS paid a consolatory payment of £100 in recognition of the inconvenience they had caused Mr Y and agreed to consider compensation for loss of use of benefit should the tribunal uphold his appeal.
Back to top
Case No. C.975/99
Delay in arranging a tribunal hearing
Following a decision by the Benefits Agency to disallow his claim for industrial injuries disablement benefit, the complainant wrote to the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) seeking an appeal to a medical appeal tribunal. It took ITS nine months to arrange the appeal. During that period ITS failed to list the appeal for a hearing despite having agreed to list it; cancelled a re-arranged hearing because of the unavailability of a specialist physician and failed to tell the complainant; delayed telling the complainant until shortly before a re-arranged hearing that it had also been cancelled; agreed with the complainant to arrange a hearing in Bournemouth but did not tell the organisers; and having arranged a hearing in Bournemouth and confirmed three weeks later that the hearing venue in Bournemouth was the correct one, three days later told the complainant that the hearing was in fact to take place in Dorchester. ITS gave their unreserved apologies for the delays and inconvenience caused to the complainant and made him an ex gratia payment of £150 by way of compensation. They also paid him a further sum of £100 in recognition of the worry and distress their handling of his appeal caused him.
Back to top
Case No. C.996/99
Delay in processing a request to set aside
The Ombudsman upheld a complaint that the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) failed to process a request made by solicitors in October 1997 for a decision by a social security appeal tribunal to be set aside. ITS also failed to reply to five letters from the solicitors between January and August 1998 asking for news about their request. The President of ITS apologised for the delay (which he attributed to the loss of Mr B's file), made an ex gratia payment of £150 to Mr B for the distress caused, and made arrangements which led to the social security appeal tribunal's decision being set aside, in March 1999. He also undertook to consider compensating Mr B for the loss of use of any benefit which might be awarded following a successful appeal before another social security appeal tribunal at re-hearing.
Back to top
Case No. C.1017/99
Lost correspondence and case papers leading to delays with an application for leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner
In October 1997, following a medical appeal tribunal, Mr X's representative wrote to the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) requesting the chairman's full statement of facts and reasons so that Mr X could decide whether to apply for leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner against that decision. The request had to be submitted three times as ITS did not receive faxed copies. At the end of January 1998 Mr X applied for leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner. In May he was told that the application had not been received and his file had been archived. After numerous telephone calls, followed by further faxed copies of the application, on 25 June ITS confirmed that the application had been received. By 20 August Mr X's application or file could not be traced. In December ITS requested duplicate copies of Mr X's papers from the Benefits Agency and his representative. In January 1999 Mr X's application for leave to appeal was heard. In view of the delays experienced ITS offered an ex gratia payment of £150 to Mr X.
Back to top
Case No. C.1136/99
Mishandling of an appeal to a disability appeal tribunal
The Ombudsman upheld a complaint that the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) mishandled an appeal; in particular that they delayed arranging the hearing, failed to provide the tribunal with relevant medical evidence and failed to reply to letters. The President of ITS apologised for the errors and delays which occurred and made a consolatory payment of £100 to Mr A in recognition of the inconvenience caused to him.
Back to top
Case No. C.1227/99
Mishandling of a request for leave to appeal to the Social Security Commissioners
On 14 March 1998 Mrs X wrote to the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) seeking leave to appeal against decisions of the social security appeal tribunal. Despite several enquiries from her, ITS did not send her file to the Office of the Social Security Commissioners until her Member of Parliament intervened in September. A week later the Social Security Commissioners' office wrongly returned her file which then went missing. On 1 November Mrs X wrote to ITS asking about progress. They did not reply and took no action on the case until the Ombudsman intervened in February 1999. ITS and the Court Service apologised for their failures. ITS made Mrs X a consolatory payment of £150 and undertook to consider further compensation for the lost value of any benefit arrears resulting from Mrs X's application for leave to appeal. The Ombudsman criticised ITS for their very poor performance.
Back to top
Case No. C.1322/99
Delay in arranging a hearing of an appeal
In August 1997 Miss G appealed against the decision of the Benefits Agency that she was not habitually resident in the United Kingdom. Her representative (Mr A) telephoned the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) four times between March and June 1998 to ask if there had been any progress in arranging her appeal hearing. On the last occasion ITS told him that the case had been transferred to a second ITS office. Mr A wrote to the second office in August and September before they wrote and told him that ITS had no record of having received Miss G's appeal. They suggested he should contact the Benefits Agency to find out if the original appeal had been received. Mr A wrote to ITS again in February 1999 saying that the Benefits Agency had told him they had sent a duplicate set of the appeal papers to ITS in December 1998. ITS obtained a copy and in May a tribunal heard and upheld Miss G's appeal. After the Ombudsman's intervention, ITS awarded Miss G an ex gratia payment of £100 as compensation for inconvenience and asked the Benefits Agency to make a compensatory payment for loss of use of benefit. ITS also described improvements they planned to their working practices and post handling.
Back to top
Case No. C.1323/99
Delay in processing an application for leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner
On 27 March 1997 Mr T's representative (Mr A) sent the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) an application for leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner. ITS spent several months trying to find it. When they could not do so they asked Mr A to submit a duplicate one. He did so in November. ITS also belatedly realised that they had lost Mr T's case file. It was reconstructed in March 1998 with papers provided by Mr A. Leave to appeal to a Commissioner was granted (twice) in April. After the intervention of the Ombudsman ITS awarded Mr T an ex gratia payment of £150 as compensation for inconvenience. They also agreed to alert the Benefits Agency to the possible need to make a further payment for loss of use if Mr T's appeal was eventually successful. ITS also described planned improvements to working practices and the handling of incoming post.
Back to top
Case No. C.1324/99
Delay in processing an application for leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner
On 4 March 1998 Mr Q's representative (Mr A) applied to the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) for a decision of a social security appeal tribunal to be set aside. When Mr A chased progress in August ITS told him that the tribunal's decision had been set aside and that Mr Q's appeal had been reheard in June even though their computer records suggested that the hearing might not have taken place. Mr A asked ITS for a copy of the tribunal's decision. At some point ITS lost Mr Q's case file and they spent several months trying to find it. In February 1999 ITS decided to reconstruct the case file with Mr A's help. ITS then sought advice as to how best to progress Mr Q's appeal having concluded that it was unlikely that the setting aside application had been dealt with and that the appeal had probably not been reheard in June 1998. The first tribunal's decision was formally set aside in June. ITS initially arranged the rehearing for a date on which Mr A had already said would not be convenient. After the intervention of the Ombudsman ITS awarded Mr Q an ex gratia payment of £150 as compensation for inconvenience. They also agreed to alert the Benefits Agency to the possible need to make a further payment for loss of use if Mr Q's appeal was eventually successful. ITS also described planned improvements to working practices and the handling of incoming post.
Back to top
Case No. C.1326/99
Failure to send a copy of the statement of material facts and findings after the hearing of a social security appeal tribunal
In February 1998 a social security appeal tribunal heard Miss W's appeal against a decision that she was not entitled to incapacity benefit. Miss W asked the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) to send her a copy of the tribunal's statement of material facts and reasons for their decision so that she could continue her appeal. ITS told Miss W's representative in August that they had not received Miss W's request. The representative wrote to ITS in September and October, but Miss W's file was not traced. In February 1999 ITS told Miss W's representative that they would try to reconstruct Miss W's file so that the tribunal chairman could prepare a statement of material facts and reasons. However, the chairman could not do so because ITS had no record of the appeal hearing. The tribunal's decision was set aside in June. ITS made an ex gratia payment of £150 as compensation for inconvenience. They alerted the Benefits Agency to the contingency that compensation would be due for loss of use of benefit if Miss W's appeal were eventually successful. ITS also described planned improvements to working practices and post handling.
Back to top
Case No. C.1327/99
Delay in processing an application for leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner
In October 1997 a social security appeal tribunal upheld the Benefits Agency's decision that Mr B could not be treated as incapable of work. Mr B wrote to the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) the following day asking for the tribunal's statement of material facts and reasons for their decision. ITS sent that statement to Mr B in January 1998 and in March his representative (Mr A) sent ITS an application for leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner. ITS mislaid Mr B's case file for several months. When it was found it did not contain the leave application. Mr A submitted a duplicate one in October. The tribunal chairman refused to grant leave to appeal but ITS did not tell Mr B that until Mr A wrote in February 1999 chasing their progress. Mr B then applied direct to the Social Security Commissioner. After the intervention of the Ombudsman, ITS awarded Mr B an ex gratia payment of £100 as compensation for inconvenience. They alerted the Benefits Agency to the possible need to make a further payment for loss of use of benefit if Mr B's appeal were eventually successful. ITS also described planned improvements to their working practices and the handling of incoming post.
Back to top
Case No. C.1328/99
Delay in processing an application for leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner
On 16 April 1998 Mr M's representative (Mr A) sent the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) an application for leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner. ITS mislaid Mr M's case file for several months. When it was found it did not contain the leave application. Mr A submitted a duplicate one in October. Leave to appeal to a Commissioner was granted in February 1999. After the intervention of the Ombudsman ITS awarded Mr M an ex gratia payment of £100 as compensation for inconvenience. They also agreed to alert the Benefits Agency to the possible need to make a further payment for loss of use if Mr M's appeal was eventually successful. ITS also described planned improvements to working practices and the handling of incoming post.
Back to top
Case No. C.1329/99
Delay in arranging a rehearing of an appeal
On 20 October 1997 a Social Security Commissioner directed that a decision made by a social security appeal tribunal in November 1995, that Mrs N was not entitled to income support, was wrong in law. He directed that a fresh tribunal should conduct a complete rehearing of Mrs N's appeal. When Mrs N's representative (Mr A) telephoned the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) in April 1998, ITS were unable to report any progress in arranging a new tribunal hearing. Subsequent telephone calls by Mr A in May and June were similarly unproductive, and between May and October ITS were unable to locate Mrs N's records. Having located those records in October, it was not until February 1999, as a result of Mr A's further intervention, that ITS took action to arrange a fresh hearing. After the intervention of the Ombudsman, ITS awarded Mrs N an ex gratia payment of £150 as compensation for inconvenience. ITS also described planned improvements to working practices and the handling of incoming post.
Back to top
Case No. C.1330/99
Delay in carrying out the directions of an adjourned social security appeal tribunal and in arranging a rehearing
In March 1998 a social security appeal tribunal adjourned Mr M's appeal against a decision that he could not be treated as incapable of work. They directed the Benefits Agency to clarify whether that decision had been superseded by a revised decision. When Mr M's representative (Mr A) wrote to the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) in August 1998, ITS were unable to report any progress. Subsequent letters by Mr A in September and October were similarly unproductive; ITS were unable to locate Mr M's records. Mr A wrote to ITS again in February 1999 chasing progress. ITS checked with the Benefits Agency who sent them a copy of a memorandum they had originally sent in November, saying that they had not previously received the tribunal's adjournment notice but there was nothing on their papers to suggest that the decision under appeal had been superseded. Mr A wrote to the Benefits Agency himself and they sent him copies of their memoranda to ITS of November 1998 and February 1999. Mr A forwarded the copies to ITS in March. In April ITS wrote to Mr A saying that they had contacted the Benefits Agency and obtained the necessary documents. On 15 June the tribunal upheld Mr M's appeal. ITS made an ex gratia payment of £150 to Mr M as compensation for inconvenience. They asked the Benefits Agency to make him a compensatory payment for loss of use of benefit. ITS also described improvements to working practices and post handling that they planned.
Back to top
Case No. C.1556/99
Failure to send a statement of material facts and reasons for a tribunal decision and to relist an adjourned hearing
In May 1998 a tribunal upheld a decision that Mr P should be treated as capable of work, but also adjourned the hearing on a different point, that Mr P should be exempted from the all work test of incapacity for work. Mr P's representative asked the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) to send a statement of material facts and reasons for their decision. When ITS relisted the adjourned hearing for 4 September Mr P's representative asked for the hearing to be postponed. ITS agreed to a postponement, but the hearing went ahead, and the tribunal decided that Mr P should be treated as capable of work. The tribunal did not consider if Mr P was exempt from the all work test. After Mr P's representative protested the regional chairman directed that the appeal about Mr P's exemption from the all work test should be relisted. In October ITS asked the chairman of the original tribunal to provide a statement of material facts and reasons, but she declined. In February 1999 ITS told Mr P's representative that they could not provide a statement of material facts and reasons. In July 1999 Mr P became entitled to incapacity benefit and withdrew his appeal. ITS awarded Mr P an ex gratia payment of £150 as compensation for inconvenience. They also agreed to liaise with the Benefits Agency to establish whether arrears of benefit had accrued during the periods of delay, and to ask the Benefits Agency to pay compensation if appropriate. ITS also described planned improvements to working practices and post handling.
Back to top
Case No. C.1557/99
Delay in arranging the rehearing of an appeal
A tribunal heard Mr R's appeal on 13 February 1998. However the hearing was adjourned because Mr R produced medical evidence during the hearing that had not been considered by the adjudication authorities. The tribunal directed the Benefits Agency to consider if the additional evidence warranted a further submission. Despite reminders the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) failed to send the Benefits Agency copies of that evidence until August. The Benefits Agency considered the evidence immediately and sent ITS a brief submission on 10 August; ITS later said that they had not received that submission. The Ombudsman found that in all probability ITS had received it but had mislaid it sometime later. Hearing nothing further Mr R chased ITS for news of the rehearing and was twice informed that the appeal was ready for listing. He continued to press ITS for news well into 1999. In late March/early April ITS realised that they could not progress Mr R's appeal because they did not have the Benefits Agency's additional submission. A copy of it was obtained in April and the appeal was reheard on 5 May. Mr R won his appeal. ITS awarded Mr R an ex gratia payment of £150 in recognition of the inconvenience they had caused him. They also offered apologies and described plans to improve the management of workloads and the handling of incoming post.
Back to top
Case No. C.33/00
Delay in deciding the admissibility of an appeal
The Ombudsman found that the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) had taken far too long to refer Mr X's appeal to a tribunal chairman for a decision on whether it should be admitted for a tribunal hearing. ITS had also initially failed to apologise for the delay, and had provided no more than a standard explanation of the reasons why the appeal was not admissible. ITS took no action on Mr X's appeal for ten months after it was lodged with them, and more than four more months elapsed before ITS sent him the decision. The Ombudsman did not uphold Mr X's complaint that ITS had not asked him for further information before the decision on admissibility was made. ITS apologised for the delay and awarded Mr X a consolatory ex gratia payment of £100.
Back to top
INLAND REVENUE
Case No. C.466/96
Delay and mishandling of tax affairs
In 1980 Mr B was a member of a large accountancy firm dealt with by a tax office in the London area. His affairs were complex and one aspect was dealt with by a specialist section in another part of the country. From 31 October 1988 Mr B was in business on his own in another part of the country. His file should have been transferred to his local tax office but was retained for a long period in the London district to ensure certain issues were resolved. For several years five Inland Revenue offices were involved in Mr B's affairs. Communications were poor: both between the Revenue and Mr B, who had to wait some two years for a reply to one letter; and between various Revenue sections, which caused a number of problems most notably confusion over the allocation of payments made by Mr B at various times. Mr B attempted to resolve that issue by agreeing with the Revenue a global schedule of payments, allocations and repayments. However, the Revenue approach was to agree each assessment in isolation and the matter remained unresolved. The Ombudsman found that the Revenue's handling of Mr B's tax affairs had been poor over a long period and that the Revenue failed to get to grip with problems before they became almost unmanageably complicated. The Chairman of the Revenue confirmed that he was prepared to consider a claim from Mr B for his direct costs and to increase a consolatory payment to £750. The Revenue provided a global reconciliation statement and undertook to discuss with Mr B the details on which it was based, should he wish further information.
Back to top
Case No. C.1230/97
Delay in finalising tax assessment and failure to advise the basis of tax liability
In November 1985 the Revenue sent Mr X an estimated assessment of his tax liability under schedule D for the tax year 1985/86. Mr X later sent the Revenue his accounts for the year ended 5 April 1985, which would normally have provided the basis for a final assessment for 1985/86. Mr X was in unfinished correspondence with the Revenue about those accounts when, in September 1986, he emigrated to Australia. The Revenue did not establish Mr X's new address until June 1987 when they resumed correspondence about his accounts. In January 1989 Mr X returned to the UK but it was not until 11 September 1990 that the Revenue finally amended the 1985/86 assessment on the basis that his source of income had ceased when he had emigrated. They then imposed an interest charge for late payment of tax due under the assessment even though Mr X had overpaid amounts against assessments for later years on the Revenue's view of the basis on which his income was chargeable. In November 1989 the Revenue made an estimated assessment of Mr X's liability for 1989/90 although they did not make clear initially that his liability would be based on current rather than preceding year accounts. Mr X disputed an interest charge later imposed by Revenue for late payment of his 1989/90 liability. The Ombudsman found some shortcomings in the Revenue's handling which he criticised. However, he found that Mr X's own conduct of his tax affairs had contributed significantly to the problems about which he had complained. In response to a request from the Ombudsman the Revenue reviewed the interest charges. They concluded that it would not be right for them to waive any further interest. The Ombudsman saw that as a decision they were entitled to take.
Back to top
Case No. C.697/98
Failure to respond promptly to requests for information
Following the introduction of independent taxation, the Inland Revenue did not send the complainant a copy of a form he had requested in completing his tax return authorising the transfer of tax allowances, apparently on the grounds that his circumstances made such a transfer inappropriate. They failed to explain why they had not sent the form. The complainant said that that failure, and the Revenue's wider failure to give proper advice, had led him to delay taking other action to re-arrange his and his wife's tax affairs and that that delay had caused him to pay tax unnecessarily. The Revenue apologised for their failure to explain why they had not sent the complainant the form relating to the transfer of allowances and for the destruction of some of his earlier tax records. The Ombudsman found in addition to those matters some deficiency in the Revenue's correspondence with the complainant. The Chairman apologised for that and offered to make an ex gratia payment of £178.50 for the extra tax which may have been incurred as a result of a reduced utilisation of age-related allowances for the 1992/93 and 1993/94 tax years.
Back to top
Case No. C.263/99
Mistake by the Inland Revenue in a letter acknowledging receipt of a re-basing election for capital gains tax purposes
In March 1992 Mr A signed a re-basing election so that the acquisition value of any assets which he owned on 31 March 1982 would be taken at that date's market prices, were he subsequently to dispose of them, without application of a comparative test to original base cost. The Revenue acknowledged receipt of the election but their letter mistakenly referred to re-basing at 31 March 1992. Mr A kept the acknowledgement but did not keep a copy of the election. When he came to sell assets in 1996, he referred to the Revenue's letter and calculated that his capital gain by reference to March 1992 prices was within the then annual exemption limit and accordingly that he would not be liable for capital gains tax. The Revenue assessed him for tax of £1,516.75 in respect of a gain in relation to 1982 prices and refused to accept that the mistake in their March 1992 letter had been so serious as to justify them foregoing the tax they saw as lawfully due. The Ombudsman accepted that was a view the Revenue were entitled to take but pointed out that when Mr A had raised the matter his letter should have been treated as an appeal for determination by the General Commissioners of Tax. The Chairman agreed to treat the letter as an open appeal.
Back to top
Case No. C.297/99
Unnecessary visits by Inland Revenue with bailiffs
A director, who controlled two limited liability companies, complained that the Inland Revenue had provided insufficient redress for expenses and distress arising from unnecessary visits they had made with bailiffs to his businesses (which operated from his private address). He complained that the Inland Revenue had refused to meet his claim for loss of earnings incurred in pursuing his complaint. Following the Ombudsman's intervention, the Inland Revenue confirmed that they would consider (under more favourable later guidance) any evidence from the complainant of his loss of earnings in dealing with the Inland Revenue's mistakes. They also increased the level of consolatory payment made to him by £50 (to £300).
Back to top
Case No. C.343/99
Inland Revenue: refusal to extend the time limit for roll-over relief reinvestment
Mr and Mrs D completed their tax returns in June 1991 showing that they had sold some land in May 1990 and claiming exemption from capital gains tax on the basis that the land was part of the garden of their private residence. In 1993 when the Inland Revenue investigated it was established that the land did not qualify for exemption; it had been used for business purposes. Mr and Mrs D then sought to qualify for roll-over relief (which applies to business assets) but the time limit for a necessary reinvestment in new assets to be made had already passed. Their accountants asked the Inland Revenue to use their discretion to extend that time limit, arguing that the Inland Revenue's delay in dealing with the tax returns had prevented Mr and Mrs D from acquiring new assets to qualify for roll-over relief within the reinvestment period. The Ombudsman did not find fault with the Inland Revenue for not having challenged the tax returns on their receipt, nor did he find that the Inland Revenue's decision not to extend the reinvestment time limit was maladministrative.
Back to top
Case No. C.768/99
Delay and poor communication led to bankruptcy proceedings being taken
Following the Ombudsman's intervention, the Chairman of the Inland Revenue accepted that Revenue failings had led to bankruptcy proceedings being taken against Mr and Mrs G's building business which should not have been necessary. The Revenue paid £600 for the distress caused, and £50 for out of pocket expenses. They also agreed to consider any evidence put to them by Mr and Mrs G that the Revenue's actions had caused them new health problems.
Back to top
LAND REGISTRY
Case No. C.1706/95
Incorrect removal of an entry from the Land Register
The Land Registry incorrectly told solicitors acting for the owners of a neighbouring property that those owners had a right of way over the complainant's property. They then made a remark on the Land Register that those owners did not have such a right; subsequently, following representations from solicitors acting for new owners of the neighbouring property they incorrectly removed that remark from the register with the effect that those owners gained a right of way over the complainant's land. The Land Registry acknowledged their error and, as they were unable unilaterally to rectify the register, agreed to pay the complainant's reasonable costs in taking professional advice as to her right to apply for rectification of the register and her right to indemnity for losses suffered by her as a result of the error. The Land Registry said they would also consider a reasoned application for making an ex gratia payment to the complainant for matters going beyond indemnification.
Back to top
LEGAL AID BOARD
Case No. C.157/99
Failure to investigate properly representations about a person's financial eligibility for legal aid
At various dates from July 1994 onwards Mr N made increasingly detailed representations to the Legal Aid Board (LAB) about the financial eligibility for legal aid of his opponent in legal proceedings; LAB passed those to the Legal Aid Assessment Office (LAAO) for investigation. LAAO did not investigate allegations in November 1994 that the opponent had undeclared business interests as thoroughly as they should have done, and delayed in pursuing effectively allegations in December 1996 that the opponent had undeclared income from employment and other assets. Following LAAO's enquiries of the opponent in April 1997 his legal aid was withdrawn in June 1997. The Ombudsman found that in the absence of maladministration that would probably have been done in March 1997, but that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the outcome of the case would in that event have been different. The Chief Executive of LAB apologised for the shortcomings identified and added that LAB had since assumed responsibility from LAAO for assessing financial eligibility for legal aid.
Back to top
Case No. C.331/99
Mishandling of the withdrawal of a legal aid certificate and of the continuation of the opponent's legal aid
From March 1996 onwards Mr X made representations to the Legal Aid Board (LAB) about the financial eligibility for legal aid of his opponent in proceedings. LAB withdrew the opponent's legal aid in August 1996 but erroneously reinstated it in September; in January 1997 they withdrew it again. In the meantime, they withdrew Mr X's legal aid on two occasions on the grounds that the litigation was likely to be fruitless if both parties qualified for legal aid. In January 1998 they withdrew Mr X's legal aid on the basis of information about his financial eligibility which the Legal Aid Assessment Office had obtained from the local benefits office. The Ombudsman found that the question of the continuation of the opponent's legal aid following Mr X's representations had been poorly handled but there had been no consequent injustice to Mr X, as it was probable that the opponent would in any event have continued to defend the action on a private basis. The Ombudsman found shortcomings in the handling of Mr X's legal aid but was unable to uphold his complaint that it ultimately been wrongly withdrawn. The Chief Executive of LAB apologised for the shortcomings identified.
Back to top
Case No. C.666/99
Failure to investigate properly representations about a person's eligibility for legal aid
In January 1996 Mr X made representations to the Legal Aid Board (LAB) against the grant of legal aid to his opponent in proceedings, primarily on the grounds that the opponent's case against him was spurious. LAB granted the opponent a limited legal aid certificate to obtain counsel's opinion on the merits of the case. In the light of that opinion they subsequently granted the opponent legal aid to proceed to trial. The Ombudsman found no administrative fault with that decision, but criticised LAB for failing, following an adjournment of the trial in January 1997, to pursue further representations made by Mr X in December 1996. In June 1997 the court dismissed the opponent's case but LAB subsequently granted legal aid for an appeal. The Ombudsman criticised LAB for delay in properly considering, in the light of renewed representations by Mr X, whether it was reasonable for the opponent's legal aid to continue for the appeal, and for failing to record the reasoning behind their eventual decision that it should continue. In February 1998 the court dismissed the appeal and ordered LAB to pay Mr X's costs of the appeal. The Ombudsman did not support Mr X's claim for an ex gratia payment from LAB for the remainder of his costs, because the considerations involved in the grant and continuation of the opponent's legal aid were such that it could not be said that in the absence of the shortcomings identified LAB would necessarily have withdrawn legal aid. The Chief Executive of LAB apologised for the shortcomings identified.
Back to top
Case No. C.949/99
Misleading advice about the application of the statutory charge
In July 1995 Mrs X, who was in receipt of legal aid, complained to the Legal Aid Board (LAB) that a court had refused to make an order for costs against her opponent in proceedings. LAB replied on 25 August; they told Mrs X, incorrectly, that she would not be liable for her costs as those costs would be met from the legal aid fund. She wrote again, querying that advice, but LAB did not reply. Mrs X went on to recover through the proceedings property to the value of £33,000; LAB registered a charge against that property in respect of her legal costs of almost £10,000. They accepted that their letter had been misleading and that it should have made mention of the statutory charge, but they did not accept Mrs X's contention that she had instructed solicitors solely on the basis of the advice contained in that letter and that her legal costs had therefore been incurred as a direct result of LAB's error. The Ombudsman found that the statutory charge had been adequately explained to Mrs X by her solicitors and through written information provided by LAB; he was not persuaded that she would have conducted the proceedings differently had the letter of 25 August made reference to the statutory charge, or that she had suffered financial disadvantage as a result of LAB's admitted error.
Summaries of other investigations completed continued
Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
|
