Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP - the ...

Miss G’s complaint about The Pension Service
Miss G’s case illustrates how far-reaching the effects of misleading information can be. As a result of a
computer problem, The Pension Service misled Miss G about her future pension entitlement. They then
gave her misleading information about what they would do to put it right, compounding their original
error. In the end, it was not possible for them to ‘turn back the clock’ for Miss G.
Background to the complaint
In June 2002 Miss G received a state pension
forecast which said she had earned a pension of
£131.73 a week up to April 2001 (including £75.50
basic state pension and £52.18 additional pension).
On the basis of those figures Miss G calculated
that she could live on a redundancy payment and
a small pension from her current employer until
retirement age, and would have sufficient income
to live on after that from the further income
due to her from her previous employer’s pension
and the state pension. Miss G took voluntary
redundancy at the end of June. In October 2004
Miss G obtained a state pension forecast which
said that she had earned a pension of £143.73 a
week up to April 2003 (including £79.60 basic state
pension and £59.89 additional pension).
In March 2006 Miss G obtained a further pension
forecast which said that she had earned a pension
of £130.47 a week up to April 2005 (consisting of
£82.05 basic state pension and £44.05 additional
pension). Miss G said that she was ‘shocked and
distressed at the huge decrease in the figures
quoted’ and telephoned The Pension Service, in
early April, to query this. After a number of calls
Miss G spoke to Officer E, to whom she wrote
subsequently to confirm the details of the call.
Miss G’s letter explained that The Pension Service’s
records showed her incorrectly as having been
contracted-out of the additional state pension
on three occasions, when it should have been
two occasions.
In May 2006 Miss G telephoned The Pension
Service to follow up her earlier letter, and spoke to
Officer F. Miss G said that she had regular contact
with Officer F who advised her that the 2002
and 2004 forecasts were accurate but that, even
if they were not, The Pension Service would pay
the 2004 forecast amounts with increases to date.
The Pension Service’s records contain only one
record of contact between Miss G and Officer F (in
July 2006) which makes no reference to honouring
earlier forecasts. Officer F did, however, seek advice
from a specialist team.
In July 2006 The Pension Service sent Miss G a
pension forecast of £133.01 a week (including £84.25
basic state pension and £44.27 additional pension).
Miss G wrote to Officer H (the manager of the
Future Pension Centre) and said that Officer F
had told her to ignore the forecast she had just
received because it was incorrect, and repeated
Officer F’s previous assurances about honouring the
earlier forecast. Later in July Officer F telephoned
Miss G and said that the forecast sent to her
(with the £44.27 additional pension) was correct.
Officer F later said he could not recall the details
of his conversations with Miss G but was sure he
would not have indicated that an incorrect forecast
would be honoured.
Also in July 2006 The Pension Service found
Miss G’s (unanswered) letter of April 2006 and
asked her for information so that they could
consider financial redress. Officer J (a customer
services officer) then telephoned Miss G, who
referred to the earlier assurances she said that
Officer F had given her. Officer J said that the
16 Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009