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
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
(For a case involving the Benefits Agency, the Independent Tribunal Service and the Court Service, see C.97/98, pages 15 and 117. For a case involving the Court Service and the Independent Tribunal Service, see C.1227/99, page 174.)
Case No. C.260/99
Court Service: delay in sending a notice to a plaintiff of a payment into court
Mr X complained that delay by the Court Service (CS) had deprived him of the opportunity to accept an increased payment into court, as a result of which he had suffered a financial loss. He complained further that CS had refused to compensate him for that loss. In January 1993 Mr X was injured by a car. On 6 April 1995 he issued a county court summons against the driver for damages. Mr X did not accept an initial offer from the defendant in satisfaction of his claim, and at a hearing on 22 October he was awarded two-thirds of his damages (to be assessed at a further hearing). Meanwhile, on 16 October the county court had received and processed a cheque for a further £2,000 from the defendant's solicitor in satisfaction of Mr X's claim. On 21 October the court sent to Mr X, by second class post, a notice of that payment. On 24 October, two days after the hearing, Mr X received that notice and delivered a letter to the court accepting the increased offer. On 15 April 1997 a judge ruled that Mr X could not accept the payment as liability had already been decided at the hearing on 22 October. He ordered Mr X to pay the costs incurred by the defendant after 7 September 1995. On 5 February 1998 a judge ordered that Mr X pay £578.97 to the defendant's solicitor as the costs incurred by the defendant since 7 September 1995 had exceeded the total amount he had been awarded. The Ombudsman did not uphold Mr X's complaint. While there had been a short delay in the court informing Mr X of the defendant's increased offer, there was no duty to notify him by a particular time and no evidence that the delay was caused by maladministration. Even had CS issued the notice without delay, there was no certainty that Mr X would have received it and accepted the payment before the court hearing.
Back to top
Case No. C.269/99
Court Service: mishandling of the listing of a hearing at a district registry
On 27 April 1994 the plaintiff issued a summons at the district registry to vary the leases of a number of flats within a property. Mr X's children (resident abroad but for whom Mr X acted as attorney) owned one of those flats and opposed the proposed variations. In September Mr X's solicitors asked the district registry to list for hearing an appeal against an earlier decision of a deputy district judge against Mr X not to strike out the summons. They also asked for the summons to be restored for hearing at the same hearing as the appeal. The district registry agreed to do so. On 27 October the case was listed for the appeal and an application to restore the summons. The judge dismissed the appeal, gave directions on the summons, and adjourned the case for trial. Proceedings concluded in September 1996. Mr X complained to the Court Service that the inaccurate listing of the hearing had prevented the case from concluding on 27 October 1994 thereby causing him and his children to incur costs they would otherwise not have incurred. The Court Service refused to compensate Mr X. While the Ombudsman criticised the Court Service for the way in which they had listed the hearing, he found no evidence that that had affected the way in which the judge had dealt with the hearing or the outcome of the hearing. He was satisfied that Mr X and his children had incurred no unnecessary costs as a result of maladministration by the Court Service. The Chief Executive of the Court Service undertook to write to Mr X apologising for the confusion that the inaccurate listing of the case had caused.
Back to top
Case No. C.336/98
Court Service: mishandling of applications for remission of court fees, failure to provide information on financial assistance for the provision of transcripts, and handling of related complaints
From August 1996 Mr X made a number of applications to the Court Service (CS) for remission of court fees, to which he received differing responses. He complained to CS about the inconsistency he perceived in the handling of his claims, and about CS's failure to publicise adequately the financial assistance that was available to obtain transcripts of court hearings. The Ombudsman found little evidence of maladministration relating to CS's discretionary consideration of Mr X's applications for remission of fees. However, CS had failed to explain to Mr X about financial assistance with obtaining transcripts, and their handling of his complaints had been poor. The Chief Executive of CS agreed to improve guidance to staff and the public on the relevant procedures and to write to Mr X apologising for the shortcomings identified and offering an ex gratia payment of £126.04 for the cost of a transcript for which Mr X had paid and the cost and inconvenience of pursuing his complaints.
Back to top
Case No. C.431/99
Court Service: delays and errors in the handling of a claim
On 2 October 1996 Mr X issued a summons against Mr Z at the county court. The Court Service (CS) issued two summonses, the first to Mr Z's business address and the second to what Mr X believed was Mr Z's home address. Both were returned to the court undelivered. On 24 December Mr X asked CS to arrange for bailiffs to serve the summons on Mr Z. Due to administrative errors by CS the bailiffs were unable to serve the summons. On 5 February 1997 CS corrected the summons and returned it to the bailiffs for further action. On 6 April Mr X queried the progress of his case. On 30 April the county court entered judgment against Mr Z; Mr X requested a warrant of execution. The bailiffs tried unsuccessfully on a number of occasions to enforce the warrant. On 25 February 1998 Mr X complained to the Ombudsman that delays and errors by CS had denied him the possibility of recovering the judgment sum and caused him to incur unnecessary costs. Following the intervention of the Ombudsman, CS acknowledged that some of the expenses Mr X had incurred stemmed from the fact that the county court had entered the judgment against Mr Z in error as the summons had not been served on Mr Z. Mr X accepted an offer by CS of £144.38 in settlement of his claim.
Back to top
Case No. C.566/99
Court Service: failure to deal properly with correspondence
In July 1998 Mrs X wrote to the county court complaining that her case had been dealt with unfairly because both of the hearings which had taken place had been heard by the same judge. The court, realising that Mrs X's complaint could not be dealt with by the Court Service's complaints procedure, replied to Mrs X advising that she should make an application to have the judgment set aside. However, in their reply the court failed to correct Mrs X's mistaken belief that the preliminary appointment had been an arbitration hearing, nor did they address her concerns that the same judge had presided over both hearings. Mrs X wrote to the court again reiterating her concerns. The court replied promptly but failed once more to deal with the matters which Mrs X had raised and, contrary to the Court Service's guidance on handling complaints, simply referred Mrs X to their earlier letter. The Ombudsman criticised the court's handling of Mrs X's correspondence. However, he found no evidence that the court's failings had deflected her from making an application to have the award set aside. It remained open to Mrs X to have the judgment set aside on payment of the appropriate fees.
Back to top
Case No. C.581/99
Court Service: delays and mishandling of a court case
Mrs X complained that as a result of delays and mishandling of her case by the Court Service (CS), she had been deprived of the opportunity of discontinuing her court action at an earlier stage. That had increased her opponent's legal costs, of which she had then had to pay a significant proportion. The Ombudsman criticised CS for the generally poor handling of Mrs X's case, but did not find them responsible for the decision to discontinue the action or the liability for the opponent's costs. Had the court files been properly maintained there might have been an opportunity of discontinuing the action a little earlier, but that would have been unlikely to have affected the amount of costs which Mrs X ultimately paid. CS invited Mrs X to apply for reimbursement of wasted costs in trying to progress the case and to obtain judgment. The Ombudsman considered that, with the Chief Executive's apologies, to be a suitable outcome to the complaint.
Back to top
Case No. C.727/99
Court Service: failure to supply notes of county court proceedings
The Ombudsman criticised the Court Service for failing to take effective action on solicitors P's requests for copies of notes of evidence of county court proceedings to which they had been a party within a month which had elapsed between their request and the hearing of an appeal, and for a lack of accuracy and clarity in the explanations they had subsequently given solicitors P. The Chief Executive acknowledged the Court Service's shortcomings and undertook to consider a claim for any additional costs incurred by solicitors P as a result and to remind staff of the correct procedure.
Back to top
Case No. C.905/99
Court Service: postponement of execution of a warrant for possession by court bailiffs
Mrs J had been granted a warrant for possession of a property she owned, to be executed on 24 March 1998. When the bailiff attended the property to execute the warrant he found the tenant to be an elderly man in poor health, and that he had no alternative accommodation arranged for after the eviction. The bailiff manager decided to postpone execution of the warrant for seven days to give the local authority social services department an opportunity to re-house the tenant. Mrs J's solicitors complained to the Court Service that the bailiffs had acted without legal authority in postponing execution of the warrant after a date had been set, and asked the Court Service to compensate Mrs J for the costs she had incurred as a result of the postponement. On the basis of legal advice, the Court Service replied that the bailiffs had been required to execute the warrant "as soon as reasonably practicable", and that the tenant's age and health problems had meant that it would not be practicable to go ahead with execution on the appointed day. They refused to compensate Mrs J. The solicitors continued to argue that the bailiffs had had no legal authority to postpone execution and that the Court Service's interpretation of the law on that point was incorrect. Questions of legal interpretation are for the courts and not for the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found that, in deciding to postpone execution of the warrant, the bailiffs had acted reasonably given the circumstances of the case and their understanding of the law. Nor did he find any maladministration in the Court Service's subsequent refusal to compensate Mrs J.
Back to top
Case No. C.1004/99
Court Service: provision of access to justice and failure to deal properly with correspondence
At a hearing held in Mr X's absence, the court of appeal refused an application by Mr X for leave to appeal out of time against the decision of a judge. Mr X, who had previously written to the court explaining that it would be difficult for him to attend the hearing, subsequently corresponded at length with the Court Service (CS), complaining that they had not afforded him, as a registered disabled person, access to justice. The Ombudsman found no evidence that maladministration by CS had contributed to the refusal of Mr X's application, which had been refused on its merits. However, the Ombudsman criticised CS for shortcomings in the way in which they had dealt with Mr X's correspondence. The Chief Executive of CS undertook to write to Mr X apologising for CS's shortcomings and offering £100 for the cost and inconvenience of pursuing his complaint. CS undertook to consider improvements in the information given to the public regarding hearings at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Back to top
Case No. C.1123/99
Court Service: failure to provide a transcript of a hearing
Mr and Mrs X complained that the Court Service (CS) had failed to provide them with a full transcript of the hearing of their application for an adjournment in possession proceedings brought against them by a building society. The Ombudsman found no evidence of maladministration by CS in relation to the provision to Mr and Mrs X of the transcript; it appeared that, for legitimate reasons, only the judgment had been recorded, and Mr X had been provided with a transcript of that in response to his application. CS might reasonably have also provided him with a copy of the judge's note of the hearing sooner than they had done, but that shortcoming had not disadvantaged Mr and Mrs X. Inadequate record keeping by CS had rendered them unable to respond effectively to Mr X's subsequent complaint on the matter. CS apologised for their failings, improved their procedures, and confirmed that instructions on record keeping were now being applied in full at the court concerned.
Back to top
Case No. C.1493/99
Court Service: failure to notify a party in time of the adjournment of an appeal hearing
Mr X was due to attend a Transport Tribunal hearing on 15 September 1998. On 14 September the hearing was cancelled because the judge became unavailable. The Court Service notified Mr X of the cancellation by letter but that was too late to prevent him from incurring wasted expenses in attending the Tribunal. In response to the complaint the Court Service acknowledged that the situation could have been avoided if the Tribunal Office's practice had been to ask for parties' telephone numbers when first writing to them. They proposed to change their procedures and compensate Mr X for the loss he had suffered.
Back to top
Case No. C.4/00
Court Service: failure effectively to reissue a warrant of execution
The Court Service (CS) failed to take adequate steps to ensure that a warrant for execution of a judgment debt which Mrs X had obtained against a travel company was safely transferred between courts following Mrs X's provision to CS of a new address for the company; by the time the transfer was eventually effected following an enquiry from Mrs X, the company had moved again and could not be traced. The Ombudsman criticised CS for that failure but did not uphold Mrs X's claim that CS should pay the unrecovered debt, because the circumstances were such that it did not appear likely that the debt would have been recovered even if the warrant had reached its destination in good time. CS offered to reimburse the fee Mrs X had paid for reissue of the warrant and to make her a "botheration payment" of £50.
Back to top
Case No. C.93/99
Public Trust Office: management of a patient's financial affairs
The Ombudsman did not uphold Mr A's complaint that his son B had no money left from a £200,000 damages settlement made in 1994 because the Public Trust Office (PTO) had failed in their duty to manage his financial affairs and as receiver had not restrained his excessive spending. The Ombudsman found that overall, given extreme pressure which B had put them under, PTO had done what they reasonably could to balance their responsibilities aimed at preserving B's assets against their responsibility to allow him sufficient funds for a reasonable quality of life. However, the Ombudsman found some shortcomings in the way that PTO had handled B's affairs, as a result of which the Public Trustee and Chief Executive of PTO agreed to issue a reminder to staff and to review procedures relating to car purchases for patients and the use of agents in the management of property repairs.
Back to top
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Case No. C.1119/97
Benefits Agency: errors and delays in handling the housing costs element of a claim to income support
The Ombudsman found that, although the Benefits Agency (BA) had been responsible for a number of errors and delays in determining and paying the housing costs element of Mr X's claim to income support, the repossession of the family's property had occurred for other reasons, including the build up of substantial arrears before Mr X had first made a claim to income support, the fact that housing costs payments made to him had not always been used to make mortgage repayments and the use of some of the borrowed money for purposes which fell outside the scope of the income support scheme. As a result of the Ombudsman's investigation, BA paid outstanding arrears of £1,453.29 to Mr and Mrs X and their lender, along with ex gratia payments totalling £1,826.19 to compensate for the financial loss resulting from the accrued interest on those late payments.
Back to top
Case No. C.659/98
Benefits Agency and Employment Service: errors and delays in handling a claim to income support by a claimant unable to claim jobseeker's allowance while sick
Mrs X, who had been unemployed and claiming income-based jobseeker's allowance, fell sick. Having received advice from her local Employment Service jobcentre she understood that she should claim incapacity benefit. Mrs X delayed making that claim because she had difficulty in obtaining claim forms from the Benefits Agency (BA) and medical certificates from her doctor. Her claim to incapacity benefit was unsuccessful because her record of National Insurance Contributions was insufficient. BA then advised Mrs X to claim income support. On her claim form she mentioned that she had been sick for some months but did not specifically ask for income support to be backdated. BA awarded her income support from the date of her claim. Mrs X's first specific request for backdating was either not received, or lost, by BA. BA took no action on her second specific request for almost three months. They also made errors and delays in dealing with her claim to income support housing costs. BA then awarded Mrs X income support and housing costs backdated to the start of her period of sickness. Later, however, they decided that that award was erroneous and the payments she had received were unrecoverable overpayments. The Ombudsman, on the balance of probability, accepted Mrs X's account that she had received inadequate advice at the jobcentre, with the result that she had failed to claim income support soon enough to prevent a break in her entitlement to benefit after she fell sick. He upheld her complaint that BA had mishandled her claim to income support. The Employment Service made Mrs X a consolatory payment of £200 as a goodwill gesture, and BA paid her £100 in respect of the gross inconvenience she had suffered as a result of their errors.
Back to top
Case No. C.22/99
Benefits Agency: failure to provide advance notice of the removal of reduced earnings allowance
In November 1995 the then Secretary of State for Social Security announced his intention to amend the regulations governing entitlement to reduced earnings allowance (REA). Between then and March 1996 the Benefits Agency (BA) issued guidance to their staff about implementation of the revised legislation once it came into force. Meanwhile on 5 March 1996 one of BA's adjudication officers renewed Mr E's long standing award of REA, for a period of 14 months, even though legislation was due come into force on 24 March 1996 that would result in the removal of his entitlement to REA from 31 March 1996. On 4 April 1996 an adjudication officer withdrew Mr E's award of REA and replaced it with an award of retirement allowance, at a much lower rate. BA did not tell Mr E of the revised award until 1 May 1996 by which time he had spent money on a new car and private tuition fees for his grandchild. The Ombudsman found no maladministration by BA except for its failure speedily to inform Mr E of the decision to withdraw his REA. Mr E incurred expenditure in the belief that he would continue to receive REA but the costs involved were not ones which met the criteria for reimbursement under BA's compensation scheme.
Back to top
Case No. C.59/99
Benefits Agency: mistake in confusing Mr W's record with another person's
In December 1997 the Benefits Agency (BA) mistakenly entered another person's date of death on Mr W's income support record. They corrected the error within three minutes, but did not stop a notice being sent automatically to the local authority, who wrote condoling with Mrs W and asking her to re-apply for housing benefit. BA explained to the local authority what had happened and apologised to Mr and Mrs W when a local newspaper took up their story. Then in March 1998, Mrs W received a single person's winter fuel payment. When Mr W queried it he was told that BA's record still showed him as deceased. The Ombudsman's investigation was unable to establish how the error in the winter fuel payment had occurred, nor why Mr W was told in March 1998 that BA's record showed him as deceased, since the computer database had been corrected promptly over three months earlier. In the light of medical evidence, BA awarded Mr W a consolatory payment of £200. BA agreed to alert staff to the possible consequences of mistaken entries on the computer database.
Back to top
Case No. C.108/99
Benefits Agency: recovery of income support overpaid during the lifetime of a deceased person from the executor of her estate
Mr X, the executor of his aunt's estate, repaid an overpayment of retirement pension and asked the Benefits Agency to confirm that no further monies were due from the estate. The Benefits Agency sent a receipt for the retirement pension paid by Mr X. He then obtained a grant of probate and distributed the estate to the beneficiaries two months later. As he believed he had discharged all the liabilities of the estate he had not advertised for creditors as advised in the Benefits Agency leaflet "what to do after a death". Over five months later the Recovery from Estates section of the Benefits Agency made a claim against Mr X for income support overpaid to his aunt who, with the help of the nursing home where she had lived, had claimed without declaring the full amount of her savings. As he had not advertised for creditors Mr X was legally liable for the overpayment. The Ombudsman agreed that there were no grounds for the Benefits Agency to waive recovery of the overpayment, but found that they should have contacted Mr X about the debt sooner and that they should have replied in clearer terms to his enquiry about monies due to or from the estate.
Back to top
Case No. C.319/99
Benefits Agency: the different effects of remarriage and co-habitation on widow's pension entitlement
By her account, in 1995 Mrs L contemplated remarriage and asked her local Benefits Agency office if remarriage or co-habitation would affect her widow's pension. She said she was told that she would lose her widow's pension whether she remarried or co-habited. She remarried but later separated. She was then told that if she had waited until she was 60 before remarrying, her retirement pension would have been not less than her widow's pension. Mrs L maintained that if she had been given appropriate information she would have delayed her remarriage. The Ombudsman found that in the absence of any contemporaneous evidence about what was said by whom and against what background in 1995, it was not possible to be sure whether the Benefits Agency's oral advice differed, and if so by how much, from what Mrs L should have been told.
Back to top
Case No. C.324/99
Benefits Agency: removal of national insurance credits
As a result of departmental error the Benefits Agency overpaid invalid care allowance to Mr S. They did not seek to recover the overpayment but subsequently removed the national insurance credits which had been awarded. Following the Ombudsman's investigation the Benefits Agency agreed to carry out a review of their arrangements and to look at Mr S's case again in the light of the review.
Back to top
Case No. C.346/99
Benefits Agency: distress caused by incorrect notification of death
Following receipt of information that a pensioner had died abroad two years previously, the Benefits Agency wrote to his wife and his last known address abroad asking for confirmation of the date of death. The pensioner was still alive and claimed that the letter had distressed him and his family in the United Kingdom. The Ombudsman found that it was not unreasonable for the Benefits Agency to rely on the information provided or to write to the pensioner's wife and his last known address to try and establish the date of death.
Back to top
Case No. C.349/99
Benefits Agency: alleged misdirection over entitlement to disability living allowance and delay in payment of disability premium
Miss A complained that despite her obvious disability, the Benefits Agency (BA) did not tell her about disability living allowance (DLA) when she visited their local office, advising her only to claim income support (IS); and that the IS claim form asked about sickness but not disability. BA did not pick up Miss A's entitlement to a disability premium (DP) when she first claimed incapacity benefit (IB). Miss A also complained that a BA helpline misled her as to the qualifying conditions for IB. The Ombudsman found that even if Miss A was not told orally about DLA, on a number of occasions BA had sent her literature which included references to DLA and she had answered questions about DLA when completing claim forms for other benefits. Before she telephoned the helpline BA had given her detailed written information about the qualifying conditions for IB. BA had overlooked Miss A's entitlement to a DP but eventually paid the 17 months arrears. No compensation for loss of use was paid because the amount calculated as due fell below the prescribed minimum.
Back to top
Case No. C.411/99
Benefits Agency: mishandling of the recovery of social fund loans
Mr H received a number of social fund loans from the Benefits Agency (BA) between 1988 and 1992. Contrary to their procedures BA started to recover some of the later loans before the older ones were fully repaid. That led to confusion over which loans had been recovered and which remained outstanding. Between the end of October 1994 and April 1997 BA failed to recover the outstanding loans through deduction from Mr H's benefit. That was because the social fund section in the local office were unaware that Mr H's income support claim was being dealt with clerically as due to a technical fault it was not put onto the income support computer system until October 1997. That breakdown in the recovery process ultimately led to an erroneous referral for enforcement action to recover the outstanding debt. BA made excess recoveries totalling £36.02 which they repaid to Mr H. They also made Mr H an ex gratia payment of £300, comprising £150 in recognition of the severe distress he had suffered and £150 consolatory payment in recognition of the gross inconvenience he had suffered.
Back to top
Case No. C.474/99
Benefits Agency: mishandling of a claim to industrial injuries disablement benefit
The Ombudsman upheld Mr X's complaint that the Benefits Agency (BA) had mishandled his claim to industrial injuries disablement benefit (IIDB). Mr X suffered an injury at work in February 1996, but his claim to IIDB was disallowed on 4 November on the grounds that the accident did not arise out of or in the course of employment as an employed earner. With the disallowance notice BA informed Mr X that he had the right of appeal to a Social Security Appeal Tribunal, which he exercised on 26 November. The appeal was not appropriate however, because questions as to whether or not a claimant is in employed earner's employment are decided first by reference to the Contributions Agency for an investigation of the claimant's national insurance classification, and final decisions are made on behalf of the Secretary of State by the Office for the Determination of Contribution Questions (ODCQ). BA referred Mr X's case to the Contributions Agency on 15 May 1997. Following further delays by the Contributions Agency and BA, Mr X was informed on 30 December that the decision to disallow his claim had been reviewed and remained unchanged. Mr X said he wished to appeal and the matter was referred to ODCQ who decided on 14 October 1998 that Mr X had been an employee. BA paid Mr X full arrears of IIDB, and made him ex gratia payments of £350.55 for the loss of use of the arrears and £50 for the gross inconvenience he had suffered.
Back to top
Case No. C.499/99
Benefits Agency: mishandling of a claim to disability living allowance allegedly causing loss of statutory entitlement as a result
The Ombudsman upheld Miss X's complaint. He found that the Benefits Agency (BA) had handled her case very poorly. Correspondence had not been linked to her papers at a critical point in the decision making process, and BA were slow to respond to enquiries from Miss X about that decision. On issuing a later duplicate decision notice BA failed to record accurately the date of the decision and as a result misled Miss X about her rights to a review of the decision. BA subsequently made further mistakes in backdating an increase in the disability living allowance award for her son. BA apologised to Miss X for their poor performance and made an ex gratia payment of £100 in recognition of the gross inconvenience which they had caused, together with payments of £357.20 for loss of statutory entitlement and £18.10 for loss of use of that money.
Back to top
Case No. C.514/99
Benefits Agency and the Independent Tribunal Service: delays in resolving entitlement to industrial injuries disablement benefit in respect of two separate industrial injuries
The Ombudsman found that poor handling of Mr X's case by the Benefits Agency (BA) and the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) had delayed the progress of his appeals and had led to an interruption of his payments of industrial injuries disablement benefit (IIDB). He also found that BA had been slow to pay the full amount of arrears due to him. Mr X was assessed as suffering from disabilities resulting from two separate industrial accidents. The assessment in respect of the first accident had expired but the assessment for the disability resulting from a later accident included an offset for a previous injury. Mr X therefore asked for reviews by adjudicating medical authorities and appealed to a Medical Appeal Tribunal in order to establish the relationship between the two injuries. After the Ombudsman's intervention a tribunal agreed that all appeals relating to both accidents should be heard together. BA and ITS made Mr X an ex gratia payment of £100 in recognition of the inconvenience he had been caused. BA also paid him £1,664.27 additional arrears of IIDB and £159.72 compensation for the delayed arrears. Furthermore, BA undertook to consider compensation for loss of use of benefit once the outcome of outstanding appeals was known.
Back to top
Case No. C.567/99
Benefits Agency: mishandling of claim to income support exacerbated by appeal delays
The Ombudsman upheld Mr X's complaint that, by leaving papers referring to his claim to income support at what subsequently turned out to be the wrong address, the Benefits Agency's (BA) actions had, albeit unintentionally, made it likely that his neighbours would have become aware of the claim; and BA made an ex gratia payment of £50 to Mr X in recognition of the embarrassment thereby caused. The Ombudsman also upheld Mr X's other complaints about BA's poor handling of his claim and that BA's delays in preparing a submission for his appeal had been exacerbated by an Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) failure to pursue that matter with them. The Chief Executives of both BA and ITS apologised to Mr X through the Ombudsman and BA made Mr X further ex gratia payments of £116.64 to compensate him for the late payment of his arrears and the gross inconvenience thereby caused.
Back to top
Case No. C.573/99
Benefits Agency: wrongful suspension of disability living allowance
Due to an error on the part of the Benefits Agency (BA), Miss X's disability living allowance (DLA) care component award had not been entered on their computer system. When a computer scan in September 1996 showed that Miss X was being paid DLA care component by BA's local office, BA stopped the award without checking further. That meant that Miss X also ceased to be eligible for income support; her income was suddenly reduced by one third. Once the Citizens' Advice Bureau had drawn the error to BA's attention, BA reinstated Miss X's benefits to their proper level in a month, and they issued the arrears. However, BA made a poor response to the enquiries from Miss X herself, the Bureau and the Member. Apologies for, and an adequate explanation of, what had occurred were still awaited more than a year later. BA paid Miss X £100 for worry and distress and £7.13 for the out-of-pocket expenses incurred in her attempts to resolve matters.
Back to top
Case No. C.628/99
Benefits Agency and Independent Tribunal Service: delays and errors in handling an appeal and failure to respond to correspondence promptly
The Ombudsman upheld Mrs X's complaint that as a result of delays and mistakes by the Benefits Agency (BA) and the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) her claim to disability living allowance (DLA) had taken more than two years to be resolved. He also found that BA and ITS had both handled poorly correspondence with Mrs X's solicitors. Mrs X's claim to DLA, made in August 1996, was disallowed and she asked for a review. BA erroneously updated their computer system to show that a decision not to review the disallowance had been made two weeks before the review request had been considered, and notified Mrs X. Mrs X asked to appeal. BA then decided to reject the review request, and accepted an enquiry from Mrs X's solicitors about the progress of the appeal as a request for an appeal. BA also asked ITS to deregister Mrs X's first, invalid, appeal, but ITS confused the valid and invalid appeals and assumed that Mrs X's case had been deregistered. As a result of complaints from the solicitors the case was reopened and in December 1998 a Disability Appeal Tribunal awarded Mrs X DLA backdated to August 1996. BA paid Mrs X £6,099 arrears of benefit. The Agency and ITS acknowledged their mistakes and delays, and made Mrs X ex gratia payments of £252.72 for loss of use of the arrears and £100 for the gross inconvenience she had suffered.
Back to top
Case No. C.652/99
Benefits Agency: delay in implementing a tribunal decision and alleged rude and dishonest treatment of the complainant by staff
The Ombudsman upheld Mr X's complaint that the Benefits Agency (BA) had delayed implementing a social security appeal tribunal decision that interest on a home improvement loan was allowable for the purposes of income support mortgage interest direct payments. He also found that there had been some avoidable delay by BA in reaching their original decision that the home improvement loan was not allowable, and in dealing with Mr X's claim for compensation. He concluded that there had been misunderstandings between Mr X and BA, but did not uphold Mr X's complaint that BA staff had been rude and dishonest. BA paid the arrears due following the social security appeal tribunal's decision on Mr X's appeal on 6 April 1998, more than five months after the hearing. Mrs X provided information in support of the compensation claim on 8 June, and BA awarded a special payment of £353.05 on 2 September. The payment was made up of £53.05 compensation for interest accrued as a result of the late payment of interest on the home improvement loan, £200 to reimburse Mr and Mrs X for savings they had had to pay to the mortgage lender because of BA's delays and a consolatory payment of £100. The Chief Executive of BA undertook to consider the possibility of further compensation for damage to Mr X's health caused by BA's actions, should suitable objective evidence be provided.
Back to top
Case No. C.697/99
Benefits Agency: delay in deciding a disability living allowance claim
In January 1998 Mrs W sent the Benefits Agency (BA) a renewal application for disability living allowance. Her award was due to expire in July. In March instructions were given for medical advice to be obtained about Mrs W's current mobility and care needs. Those instructions were overlooked until May. A doctor whom BA asked to examine Mrs W was unable to arrange a convenient appointment, while a second doctor would not agree to Mrs W's request that the examination be tape recorded. While the Ombudsman accepted that that was beyond BA's control, he found that BA's poor internal communications had added to the inevitable delay. The Ombudsman also found that BA's handling of correspondence was inadequate. The medical examination took place on 2 September and BA renewed the disability living allowance mobility component award two weeks later. They disallowed the care component but reinstated it on review in November. BA awarded an ex gratia payment of £50 as compensation for gross inconvenience. After the Ombudsman's intervention BA increased that award to £100 and paid £31.46 towards Mrs W's out-of-pocket expenses.
Back to top
Case No. C.724/99
Benefits Agency: delays and errors in considering claims to income support
The Ombudsman upheld Mr X's complaint about mistakes and delays by the Benefits Agency in handling claims to income support made by his sister, Mrs Y. The Ombudsman found that BA had failed to determine an earlier claim which Mrs Y had made on behalf of her late husband; repeatedly ignored correspondence; issued her with a misleading document which delayed their decision on her own claim; failed to notify her of the rejection of that claim and then gave her the wrong reason for having rejected it; and failed to consider whether there were grounds to backdate the claim. The Chief Executive apologised for the poor performance of the Benefits Agency who, having already paid the resulting arrears, made an ex gratia payment of £100 to compensate Mrs Y for the gross inconvenience they had caused.
Back to top
Case No. C.746/99
Benefits Agency: errors and delays in handling a claim to disability living allowance
The Ombudsman found that the Benefits Agency (BA) had given ambiguous and misleading information to Mr X and the local Citizens' Advice Bureau about his rights of review of the decision not to award him disability living allowance (DLA), with the result that it had taken almost six years for matters to be resolved. The Chief Executive apologised for BA's poor handling of the case. BA paid arrears of DLA totalling £9,202.75 to Mr X along with a special payment of £910.60 to compensate him for the loss of benefit to which he was no longer entitled and £1,397.31 to compensate him for the late payment of the arrears and the special payment.
Back to top
Case No. C.778/99
Benefits Agency: allegation that the unsolicited issue of a claim form for severe disablement allowance resulted in misdirection
The Ombudsman did not uphold Mrs X's complaint because he found that her completion of the severe disablement allowance claim form and the consequent award of the benefit had not led to a reduction in her total income from benefits. He criticised the Benefits Agency for failing accurately to explain the statutory position to Mrs X or to deal clearly and comprehensively with her enquiries. The Chief Executive of the Agency apologised for that.
Back to top
Case No. C.801/99
Benefits Agency: delays in handling correspondence concerning withdrawal of disability living allowance
The Ombudsman upheld a complaint by a Citizens' Advice Bureau that the Benefits Agency (BA) had needlessly delayed acknowledging and acting on correspondence relating to the termination of Mr X's entitlement to disability living allowance. The Chief Executive apologised for BA's poor handling of the correspondence and BA made an ex gratia payment of £100 to Mr X to compensate him for the gross inconvenience thereby caused. BA also said that, following the outcome of Mr X's appeal against the termination, they would consider whether any compensation might be appropriate for delay in paying benefit due to him; and they agreed that, irrespective of the outcome of that appeal, they will not seek to recover benefit already paid to Mr X during the period after the date on which his entitlement was withdrawn.
Back to top
Case No. C.832/99
Benefits Agency: failure to chase up an overdue examining medical practitioner's report
Ms R appealed against the Benefits Agency's (BA) decision to disallow her the disability living allowance care component. On 12 June 1998 the disability benefits unit (the unit) asked a regional disability benefits centre to obtain an examining medical practitioner's report on Ms R's condition. After Ms R contacted the unit some six weeks later they realised that the examining medical practitioner's report was overdue. Enquiries revealed that the examining medical practitioner was off work and the report request had lain untouched. The Ombudsman found that BA had failed to follow their own procedures for progressing overdue reports and that BA had not kept Ms R fully informed of developments. The unit requested another examining medical practitioner's report on 19 August and it was subsequently obtained on 10 September. BA apologised for not chasing up the overdue report and for other oversights identified during the investigation. They agreed to consider compensating Ms R for any significant out of pocket expenses she had incurred.
Summaries of other investigations completed continued
Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
|
