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

What we investigated
In November 2007 Mr C asked for his complaint
to be referred to the Ombudsman. He complained
that The Pension Service had failed to maintain
proper records. He also complained that Debt
Management:
• had taken too long to tell Miss E’s estate that
there might be an overpayment and throughout
that time omitted to explain that they did not
have her file;
• failed to reply to correspondence; and
• provided inaccurate calculations once they had
reviewed the case.
We did not investigate Mr C’s complaint that Debt
Management’s final overpayment calculation was
unlikely to be correct (he had sought a refund of
the £518.80), as he had a right of appeal against the
overpayment decision. That appeal was successful,
and Mr C was refunded the £518.80, and paid
interest for loss of use.
Mr C said that he had suffered an injustice because
the errors and delay caused the estate to incur an
unnecessary £1,445.25 in legal fees and caused him
unnecessary trouble.
What our investigation found
Although Mr C had provided information about
Miss E’s savings throughout the period of her claim,
The Pension Service acted maladministratively
by not updating Miss E’s electronic records (with
the result that the information was not available
to Debt Management after Miss E’s death). We
also found that maladministration by The Pension
Service caused the absence of Miss E’s clerical
file and the record of its movements. This meant
that Debt Management did not have access to
information that would have allowed them to make
a timely and accurate decision in 2005 about any
overpayment.
We found that Debt Management’s failure to tell
Mr C that the case papers were missing was, in
this case, maladministrative. This delayed Debt
Management’s work and caused injustice to Mr C,
who engaged in unnecessary correspondence
and incurred avoidable legal costs (only a small
proportion of the legal fees incurred related to
work required regardless of any maladministration).
We found that Debt Management acted
maladministratively by failing to reply to Mr C’s
correspondence in April 2006 (and to his follow-up
contacts) until his July 2006 letter was identified as
a possible complaint.
We did not uphold the complaint that Debt
Management had provided inaccurate calculations
when they reviewed the case. The officer dealing
with Mr C at that time had exemplified two of
the Principles of Good Administration: ‘Being
customer focused’ and (as soon as Mr C provided
his records) ‘Putting things right’. Two further
minor errors (issuing a payment request for the
wrong amount and omitting enclosures) were put
right promptly and apologised for. Our report also
highlighted the importance of a third Principle
(‘Being open and accountable’); particularly the
disproportionate effect on individuals of missing
files and the cost to individuals and to public
bodies of failing to be clear about the reasons for
their decisions.
The investigation concluded in December 2007 and
overall we partly upheld Mr C’s complaint.
Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009 37