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

was owed would ever be paid. Also in March, The
Pension Service issued a further payment of £185.48
(for the period 20 February to 13 March). In April
a different officer, Officer D, emailed Mr V and
said that a payment of £1,298.36 had been issued
on 17 February and a payment of £185.48 had been
issued on 13 March. She asked for confirmation
of receipt of the first payment so they knew the
details were correct for the second. Mr V replied to
Officer D, acknowledging receipt of two copies of
Form IPC152 (which claimants complete to confirm
that a payment has not been received). He also
said that: HSBC Macau had received two cheques
for £1,298.36; they had been sent for collection to
the UK on 14 March and returned without payment
by The Pension Service; HSBC Macau had sent the
cheques for collection again on 29 March; HSBC
had not received an order for £185.48; amounts
could be credited direct if they were made payable
to HSBC (Macau); he had incurred a fee for each
collection; and he would not be returning the
IPC152 forms in case that led to cancellation of
cheques that might still be in the system.
The Pension Service have no record of receiving
any further letters or emails from Mr V from this
point on. However, Mr V emailed Officer D in late
April to explain that his Hong Kong dollar account
had been credited with £1,289.36 and his sterling
account with £1,308.36 (which he believed resulted
from a duplicate payment order). He said also that
HSBC had charged him fees totalling £14.25 for
two deposits and a £10 cancellation fee when The
Pension Service had countermanded one of the
duplicate payments. He asked if his pension could
now be paid to HSBC Macau without duplication.
In late May 2006 Mr V emailed Officer D to say
that his bank statement showed no payment since
10 April and no sign of the payment of £185.48.
He questioned the lack of replies to his emails
and asked what was happening to his pension. He
emailed Officer D in June asking why payments
had stopped. Between 18 July and 8 August Mr V’s
bank in Macau received four separate payments of
£185.48. On 9 August the Ombudsman received a
referral of a complaint from Mr V from a Member
of Parliament, and accepted the complaint for
investigation in September. In late September The
Pension Service wrote to Mr V, apologising for
the delay in his case, naming an officer for him to
contact and explaining that they had continued to
send his payments to Hong Kong instead of Macau
and that they had, from February 2006, made all
payments by payable order. Mr V did not receive
this letter. In November The Pension Service
awarded £100 to Mr V by way of apology because
the service they provided had fallen short of their
usual standard, and £24.38 towards the interest
he might have earned on his state pension had he
received it on time.
What we investigated
Mr V complained that The Pension Service failed
to make him regular pension payments from
August 2005 to the end of July 2006; that
from August 2005 onwards he received
unsatisfactory replies to his correspondence;
and that they had not replied to him at all after
April 2006. He said he had been caused financial
hardship, stress and inconvenience.
What our investigation found
The Pension Service made a mistake in
September 2005 when they failed to input
Mr V’s bank details correctly. While regrettable,
that mistake on its own did not amount to
maladministration. It was after Mr V contacted
them in October 2005, having not received his
pension, that The Pension Service failed to provide
Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009 87