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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• During DWP’s review of the Guide, they should ensure that it is clearer than at present in guiding officers to provide remedies which take full account of the impact of maladministration on an individual customer, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Principles for Remedy, and avoids rigidities that prevent this. In her response to a draft of our report, Mrs P commented that: ‘I am pleased at this much later stage that I pursued my complaint against The Pension Service, although at times I did feel that the system was much larger than myself … I feel that the main problem with the service as a whole, right from the initial contact, is that there is no continuity of personnel who deal with one’s affairs. I can see that you have recommended this in the complaints procedure itself which should be a great improvement, giving a more personal approach. Hopefully others who have to resort to the complaints system may be better dealt with.’ Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009 85
Mr V’s complaint about The Pension Service In Mr V’s case, although the original error was relatively small, The Pension Service’s handling of his complaint was so poor and so lacking in customer focus that they managed to turn a minor mistake into a significant problem, interrupting the payment of Mr V’s pension and causing him a great deal of frustration. Background to the complaint In 2004 Mr V, who lived in Hong Kong, began receiving his state pension, paid monthly and direct into his Hong Kong bank account. In August 2005 Mr V wrote to tell The Pension Service that his HSBC bank accounts would soon transfer from Hong Kong to Macau. The Pension Service acknowledged his letter, but input the account details incorrectly using a Hong Kong code. (Electronic transfer payments to Macau were not possible; had the officer used a Macau code the system would have recognised this and not allowed payments to be issued in that form.) In October Mr V wrote to The Pension Service again as no payments had been made into his Macau bank account; he gave his account details again and details of a separate Hong Kong dollar account (in case the currency being used was causing the problem). The Pension Service acknowledged his letter. In November and December 2005 Mr V wrote two further letters to The Pension Service; he asked for a reply and said he had received no pension payments since August. In December The Pension Service wrote to Mr V and said that a payment to cover the period from 8 August to 27 November would be made direct to his HSBC account. Mr V said that he did not receive this letter. In late December Mr V received a letter from The Pension Service (dated 6 December) about direct payment. He replied the next day and said that his bank in Macau could see no reason for the payment problems and that he received electronic transfer payments from other agencies without difficulty. He suggested ways to overcome the problems but said, if they did not work, they could send him a cheque. In January 2006 Mr V emailed the ‘Centre for non-residents’ section of HM Revenue & Customs’ website, complaining about The Pension Service. They forwarded the email to The Pension Service. Mr V then emailed The Pension Service direct. In the meantime, The Pension Service had suspended the payments due to Mr V (in line with their normal procedures where automatic payments are returned). In February Officer C, at The Pension Service, replied to Mr V’s emails and said that two payments had been issued on 19 January. Mr V replied, saying he had no evidence of any payments reaching his account and added ‘This matter is so frustrating and depressing I could weep’. Officer C emailed Mr V to say that he had received technical advice to the effect that electronic transfer could not be used to Macau, that payments could be made by post to Macau and that the payments previously issued to Mr V had shown up as returned. The same day The Pension Service wrote separately to Mr V to say that his HSBC account in Macau had been sent a payment of £1,298.36 covering his pension from 8 August 2005 to 19 February 2006. In March 2006 Mr V received The Pension Service’s letter, but his bank had not received any payments. Mr V emailed Officer C to query this: he said that the depression and stress caused by this matter was harming his health. Ten days later Mr V sent a further email to Officer C referring to his emails being ignored and asking whether the money he 86 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 11 and 12:
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 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36: the matter would be dealt with inte
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 43 and 44: 42 Putting things right: complaints
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: Because Mexborough did not complete
Page 89 and 90: an adequate service. In particular,
Page 91 and 92: e awarded because Officer L’s act
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?