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

Mrs P’s complaint about The Pension Service
Mrs P’s case demonstrates poor complaint handling at an individual level and at a systemic level. The
Pension Service took far too long to resolve Mrs P’s complaint about their handling of her late mother’s
pension; it took 18 months for them to get as far as considering compensation for the impact of their
maladministration. Then, because of weaknesses in the departmental guidance, they did not take into
account all the relevant factors; they discounted part of Mrs P’s claim simply because it did not match
the particular meaning DWP put on ‘time’ and ‘distress’.
Background to the complaint
In July 2003 Mrs P’s mother (Mrs R) went into
hospital. In September Mrs P returned Mrs R’s
pension book to The Pension Service to be
updated. In November The Pension Service
updated Mrs R’s entitlement and paid arrears.
Meanwhile, in October, Mrs P had applied
to become her mother’s appointee. She was
interviewed and told her application had been
approved. She also completed her mother’s
application for pension credit. Mrs R continued
to receive pension books in her name: Mrs P’s
appointee application had actually been refused
because Mrs R was not present at the interview.
(The Pension Service lost the application and so
did not confirm with the hospital that Mrs R was in
attendance there.) They also lost the pension credit
application.
In February 2004 Mrs P made fresh appointee
and pension credit applications, which were
approved. During this period Mrs P asked for a
change of Post Office where the pension book
could be cashed. She returned several books
before the change was made. After Mrs R died
in March, Mrs P notified The Pension Service and
asked for any benefit arrears to be paid. In June
Mrs P chased the matter up and The Pension
Service then made two payments of arrears (one
of which should not have been made). In July
Mrs P complained to Nottingham Pension Centre
(Nottingham) about the service she had received
and asked for compensation for the time spent
dealing with these errors, for the stress caused,
and for interest for the periods Mrs R had been
without benefits. Nottingham said they would
reply within three months. In November they told
Mrs P her complaint had not been looked at. They
apologised for the delay and asked for evidence
of her communication costs. Mrs P provided
estimates of her costs and said she wanted all of
her complaint taken into account when considering
compensation.
In February 2005 Mrs P was notified that she would
receive £64.62, but without explanation. (The
payment was, in fact, to cover her communication
and travel costs.) Mrs P contacted Nottingham,
who said the rest of her compensation claim
would be passed to the special payments
team in Newcastle (Newcastle). It appears that
Newcastle did not receive the papers: they were
resent in April, but Newcastle have no trace
of receiving them. In August responsibility for
handling pension credit claims – and thus Mrs P’s
complaints – moved to Mexborough Pension
Centre (Mexborough). When her file arrived it was
put into storage. In October Mrs P chased matters
again. Mexborough said the file would have to be
retrieved, but by January 2006 they had not found
it. They created a new file, with Mrs P’s help, and
made a special payment referral to Newcastle in
late January. The referral gave brief details of the
events leading to Mrs P’s complaint and noted
some of the facts. There was no section covering
‘what should have happened’ and the full extent
of what errors were accepted was not clear. The
referral did not give full details of events from
July 2004.
82 Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009