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

In February 2006 a special payments officer
considered Mexborough’s referral. Under ‘what
should have happened’ the officer recorded
that papers for the appointee and pension
credit applications had gone missing and that
there was no follow-up action when Mrs P had
first complained. The officer awarded Mrs P
compensation of £100 for inconvenience, but
refused an award for time and stress, saying
there was no evidence to support that claim.
The decision letter sent to Mrs P on 13 February
said that payment for a person’s time could only
be made if it was necessary for a person to take
unpaid time off work, and that payments for
distress can only be made on receipt of ‘objective
evidence, usually in the form of medical evidence
confirming the effects on a person’s health’. The
letter signposted Mrs P to the Ombudsman if she
was still dissatisfied. Mrs P responded on 6 March
saying, amongst other things, that her complaint
was about the original matters and also about
poor complaint handling. Newcastle reviewed their
compensation decision, but did not change it.
Mrs P asked Newcastle if they had taken account
of her recent letter. Newcastle said they had not.
They then considered her letter, but the decision
remained unchanged. In July the Ombudsman
received Mrs P’s complaint.
What we investigated
We investigated The Pension Service’s handling
of the pension payments, the claim for pension
credit and the appointee application, and also their
complaint handling. Mrs P said that: in dealing with
both the original matters and the complaint no
action was taken unless she chased the matter up;
there were long delays; and the eventual responses
were superficial and impersonal. She said she
was put to inordinate time and trouble, incurred
unnecessary costs, and suffered inconvenience,
frustration and distress. She sought a proper
response to her complaint, an appropriate remedy
and improvements in the way The Pension Service
handle complaints.
What our investigation found
The Pension Service took two months to update
the pension payments after Mrs R had gone into
hospital, they did not take necessary action on
the pension credit and appointeeship applications
and then lost the papers. They also failed to
act on requests for a change of Post Office and
took three months to make the final payments
due. Taken together, that all amounted to
maladministration. Instead of ‘Putting things right’
(one of the Principles of Good Administration),
the level of customer service or focus was
appalling. Nottingham led Mrs P to expect that
her complaint would be dealt with within three
months but it was not. When they did act, instead
of passing the whole matter to Newcastle with
a properly completed referral form, they dealt
with Mrs P’s communication costs. What may have
been an attempt to be helpful only impeded a
full consideration of her complaint. Mrs P also
received a payment with no explanation. Matters
went further awry when Newcastle did not receive
the special payment referral from Nottingham.
No one officer took responsibility for ensuring
the complaint was progressed, and despite
Mrs P chasing progress, still nothing happened.
When Mexborough assumed responsibility for
the complaint, no one told Mrs P. When the file
arrived they put it into storage, and could not
retrieve it. The compensation referral was sent to
Newcastle some 18 months after Mrs P complained.
It should have been done within a month. That
was extremely poor service and amounts to
maladministration.
Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009 83