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

matter would be fully looked into, but it might take
some time. Miss G then sent The Pension Service a
copy of her letter to Officer H (which had not been
replied to) and the following day provided details
to enable them to consider financial redress. She
said she would not have stopped working in 2002
had she received a correct forecast and asked for
Officer F’s assurances to be honoured.
In late July 2006 Miss G wrote to tell The Pension
Service that she was concerned their records
showed her incorrectly as not contracted-out
from 1999-2002 and asked if contributions from
the early 1990s had been omitted from her 2006
forecast. In August 2006 Officer J told Miss G
that being contracted-out did not affect her
additional pension and apologised for giving the
impression that their records did not show she was
contracted‐out in 1999-2002. Miss G raised again
the assurances given by Officer F. Officer J told
Miss G that neither senior staff nor Officer F had
authority to honour the earlier forecasts.
Miss G sent a letter of complaint to The Pension
Service. Later in August 2006, an officer from The
Pension Service visited Miss G to take a statement
about her complaint. During that meeting Miss G
disagreed with The Pension Service’s account of
events (including that Officer F had told her that
the July 2006 forecast was correct). Miss G then put
her complaint to her MP. She said that Officer J had
confirmed that Officer F had acknowledged that
she would receive a pension in line with the 2004
forecast. Officer J later said that she did not recall
telling Miss G that Officer F had confirmed that
version of events to her. The MP then wrote to the
Chief Executive of The Pension Service.
caused her, and £10 towards her communication
costs. The awards were made on the basis that the
2002 and 2004 forecasts had applied information
incorrectly (the wrong category of National
Insurance contributions had been used to calculate
additional state pension), with the result that
the additional state pension figure was too high.
The Pension Service also apologised to Miss G,
but said they could not pay redress for financial
disappointment (her claim that she would not have
accepted voluntary redundancy was considered
to be a hypothetical loss rather than evidenced
financial loss).
In October 2006 The Pension Service’s Chief
Executive wrote to the MP apologising for the
mistake and offering an explanation. She said that
they were investigating whether other customers’
records were affected by the error, and that they
could not pay Miss G’s pension at a higher rate,
and (apparently unaware of the September 2006
decision) that they would consider compensation.
Miss G remained unhappy, and declined to cash
the cheque for the compensation payment (lest
this imply that she accepted the lower pension
entitlement), and the MP then wrote to the
Minister for Pensions Reform. That letter was
passed to The Pension Service’s Chief Executive,
who replied in November, offering further
apologies and explanations. She also said that
pension forecasts were only an estimate and should
not be taken as a formal decision of entitlement.
She also said that they could not confirm the
content of the calls between Miss G and Officer F,
but the information he was alleged to have given
was incorrect. In January 2007 Miss G complained
to the Ombudsman.
In September 2006 The Pension Service completed
their investigation of Miss G’s pension forecasts,
and awarded her compensation of £100 by way of
apology for the inconvenience their errors had
Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009 17