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

On 23 February the Agency telephoned Mr J.
They apologised to him and advised that the case
would be closed. They also told Mr J’s employer
that the deduction from earnings order had been
terminated and refunded £212.36 to Mr J.
In March 2007 Mr J’s MP wrote to the Agency and
to the Parliamentary Under‐Secretary of State
for Work and Pensions to complain about the
Agency’s treatment of Mr J. The Parliamentary
Under‐Secretary of State replied to the MP, saying
that Mr J had been identified as the non-resident
parent based on ‘a slight similarity to the date
of birth that a parent with care had provided’.
He said that the Agency had not removed Mr J’s
records from their system in 2003, which had
resulted in him receiving further letters.
He apologised for the way the Agency had dealt
with Mr J and said that they had assured him
that they had removed his details from their
computer system.
On 4 April 2007 the Agency twice wrote to Mr J
about arrangements for collecting maintenance
payments. The Agency say this happened because
the ‘prompt’ placed on their computer system to
prevent further notifications being issued did not
work. On 5 April Mr J wrote to the MP enclosing
the previous day’s letter. He said he was upset and
angry that nothing had changed after everything he
had been through. He said:
‘I don’t think the CSA know how much pain
and anguish they have and are still putting me
through. I’m at the end of my tether. I am very
worried how this is affecting my credit rating
and security details. No one has assured me
that my records will return to normal or that
my mental health or the trust of my family will
be returned. How do I know this won’t happen
again? I don’t, because there has been no
guarantee that it will stop.’
On 20 April 2007 the Agency told the MP that Mr J
had been incorrectly identified as the non-resident
parent because they had not followed the relevant
procedures. They had only established a ‘tentative
link with the date of birth provided by the parent
with care’. They said they had now removed ‘all’ of
Mr J’s details from the system, and had awarded him
compensation of £250 for gross inconvenience and
£150 for severe distress. This payment was wrongly
sent to Mr J’s neighbour. The Agency apologised to
Mr J and made him a further payment of £200 for
gross embarrassment.
In May 2007 Mr J’s MP referred a complaint to
the Ombudsman. In February 2008, during our
investigation, the Agency sent Mr J a schedule
for maintenance payments, addressed to
‘Mr Person Erroneous’. The Agency told us that
they had previously removed only Mr J’s name
and National Insurance number from their system
and put an ‘inhibitor’ in place to prevent the
issue of further correspondence. However, they
thought the action on Mr J’s case resulting from
our investigation could have caused the system to
remove the inhibitor. The Agency reapplied the
inhibitor and removed Mr J’s address from their
system. They said that they had also amended
their procedures to ensure that addresses as well
as names and National Insurance numbers are
removed in future.
What we investigated
We investigated the Agency’s incorrect
identification of Mr J as the non-resident parent
and why they failed to put things right once they
were made aware of their error.
Mr J told us that the Agency’s actions caused
him shame and anxiety. He felt that he had been
‘violated financially, mentally and emotionally’
Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009 49