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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Mr N’s complaint about the Child Support Agency Some delays in receiving child support maintenance payments may be unavoidable. However, in Mr N’s case, the Child Support Agency unnecessarily delayed consideration of an advance payment, which was itself the product of their earlier maladministration. Background to the complaint Advance payment Following Mr N’s previous complaint to the Ombudsman (which we upheld and reported on in March 2006), the Child Support Agency (the Agency) agreed to consider making him an advance payment of maintenance for the period April to December 2004. Our report also referred to a telephone call between Mr N and the Agency on 19 May 2005, which the Agency’s notes said had been terminated because of what they felt was his abusive manner. In June 2006 the Agency told Mr N that they were considering the advance payment; he should hear from them in the next six to eight weeks. In April 2007 the Agency awarded Mr N an advance payment of £940, with interest. Ongoing maintenance payments and telephone contact In May 2006 Mr N wrote to the Agency to complain that the maintenance payments he was receiving from the parent with care, via the Agency, had become erratic. The Agency replied on 19 July saying that they had tried to telephone him to explain, but had been unsuccessful. They said that they had, by mistake, sent Mr N’s payments to him by girocheque rather than direct payment, which would explain the erratic payments. They said they would consider paying him compensation. Mr N wrote back to complain about the delay in responding to his letter, and that the Agency had previously agreed not to contact him by telephone. (In a subsequent letter to his MP, Mr N said that the Agency had not in fact tried to telephone him, as they had claimed, because he had a log of all incoming calls. The Agency have no record of an attempted telephone call.) The Agency refused further compensation: they considered that compensation payments they had previously made to Mr N between May 2001 and September 2005 (totalling £740) adequately remedied their errors and delays. In July and August 2007 the Agency failed to make payments to Mr N that they had received from the non-resident parent. They held the payments on their clerical log because the previous schedule of payments had run its course, and a new one had not yet been calculated. The Agency calculated a new schedule in September which enabled them to pass on the payments to Mr N. Response to Mr N’s complaint that the Agency’s records showed he had been abusive Following the Ombudsman’s March 2006 report, Mr N complained to the Agency that their records showed that they considered him to have been abusive during a telephone conversation on 19 May 2005. The Agency sent Mr N the contemporaneous manuscript note of the call in which the officer had noted that Mr N had ‘sarcastically bleated goodbye’ a number of times, and had shouted and been abusive. The Agency apologised to Mr N and invited him to identify which remarks he wanted deleted from the record, which he did. In August 2006 the Agency told Mr N that the officer’s senior manager had been informed, and Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009 33
the matter would be dealt with internally; the record of the telephone conversation had been destroyed and replaced with a non‐subjective record; and they would consider paying compensation. Mr N asked the Agency for more information about what disciplinary action would be taken. The Agency declined to disclose that information, citing the Data Protection Act, and refused to make Mr N a compensation payment for gross embarrassment because the comments had not been released outside the Agency. Request for arrears In August 2007 the Agency noted that three payments from Mr N’s account (as the non‐resident parent) had not been allocated, and in September the Agency told him that he owed arrears of £1,058.76. Mr N telephoned the Agency, and they acknowledged that he had paid the maintenance and did not owe the arrears. What we investigated In February 2007 we received Mr N’s complaint. The concerns we investigated were that the Agency: • took too long to decide whether to award him an advance payment of maintenance, and failed to update him on progress; • delayed forwarding maintenance payments to him from the non-resident parent; • tried to contact him by telephone, having agreed not to do so; and Mr N later asked us to investigate two further issues, that he: • had not received maintenance for July and August 2007; and • had been told he had not paid maintenance between June and September 2007. The Ombudsman has no remit to investigate actions relating to appointments or removals, pay, discipline, superannuation or other personnel matters. Therefore we could not investigate Mr N’s complaint about the Agency’s refusal to tell him what action they took in response to his concerns about unfounded allegations of abusive behaviour. Mr N complained that the Agency’s actions had exasperated, frustrated and offended him, and caused him to suffer financially. What our investigation found Advance payment The Agency told Mr N in June 2006 that he should hear from them within six to eight weeks about an advance payment, but they did not make the decision until April 2007. The delay occurred because of maladministration by the Agency, and we found no evidence that they had kept Mr N informed of their progress. That maladministration meant Mr N had to wait a further ten months before they put things right, causing frustration and inconvenience. We upheld the complaint. • failed to respond properly to his complaint that officers had wrongly alleged that he had been abusive to them. 34 Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009
Page 1 and 2: Putting things right: complaints an
Page 3 and 4: © Crown Copyright 2009 The text in
Page 5 and 6: Falling between the gaps ..........
Page 7 and 8: communications failings between the
Page 9 and 10: 8 Putting things right: complaints
Page 13 and 14: which stated that officials should
Page 15 and 16: In January 2006 Mr S’s MP wrote t
Page 17 and 18: Miss G’s complaint about The Pens
Page 19 and 20: What we investigated We investigate
Page 21 and 22: Mr K’s complaint about Jobcentre
Page 23 and 24: and accountable’) the Ombudsman e
Page 25 and 26: claim did not link with the previou
Page 27 and 28: Mr Q’s complaint about Jobcentre
Page 29 and 30: In investigating Mr Q’s complaint
Page 33: 32 Putting things right: complaints
Page 37 and 38: Mr C’s complaint about The Pensio
Page 39 and 40: Outcome As a result of our recommen
Page 41 and 42: Jobcentre Plus’s special payment
Page 47 and 48: On 8 November the solicitors contac
Page 49 and 50: Mr J’s complaint about the Child
Page 51 and 52: as had his privacy, family and work
Page 53 and 54: to 31 March 2006 excluding three
Page 59 and 60: treated inequitably as a result of
Page 61 and 62: Mr E’s complaint about Jobcentre
Page 63 and 64: Mrs Z’s complaint about Jobcentre
Page 65 and 66: We expect public bodies to deal wit
Page 67 and 68: Mr L’s complaint about Jobcentre
Page 69 and 70: Mr L also had difficulty communicat
Page 71 and 72: savings had affected his income sup
Page 73 and 74: Outcome As a result of our recommen
Page 75 and 76: In April 2006 Jobcentre Plus wrongl
Page 81 and 82: On 10 May 2007 the Agency sent a le
Page 83 and 84: Mrs P’s complaint about The Pensi
Page 85 and 86:
Because Mexborough did not complete
Page 87 and 88:
Mr V’s complaint about The Pensio
Page 89 and 90:
an adequate service. In particular,
Page 91 and 92:
e awarded because Officer L’s act
Page 93 and 94:
92 Putting things right: complaints
Page 95 and 96:
94 Putting things right: complaints
Page 97:
PHSO-0033 Printed in the UK by The
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?