Annual Report 2007-08 - the Parliamentary and Health Service ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3Case StudyPlanning mistake contributedto closure of storeSolicitors complained on behalf of their client, a major retailer,about an error in a letter issued by the Government Office forthe East Midlands, now part of the Department for Communitiesand Local Government (the Department) – on behalf of the thenSecretary of State – granting planning permission to adevelopment company. They also complained that the failure tocorrect that error had caused the client unnecessary expensesand a loss of business at one of its stores.We fully upheld the complaint. In granting planning permissionto the developer, a restrictive condition on goods that could besold was omitted, and a condition relating to the floor spaceavailable for food retailing was ambiguously worded, whicharguably increased the amount of floor space allowed. That errorwas compounded by incorrect assurances of prompt action torectify matters (as a result of which other parties, specifically thelocal council, failed to take action themselves which might havebeen successful). There was a failure to take account of all therelevant factors when deciding how to put things right. That ledto the Department spending some 14 months trying to negotiatea voluntary agreement before starting formal modificationprocedures, and then deferring those procedures while theSecretary of State considered a planning application from anotherdeveloper who had purchased the land to which the faultyplanning permission related.We found that the Department’s error and its failure to correctit promptly was not the sole cause of the store’s subsequentclosure, but that it did lead to injustice. That was because thecontext of all future planning decisions for the land in questionwas irrevocably altered, and the erroneous permission grantedbecame a significant factor in future planning decisions, eventuallyleading to the opening of a superstore directly opposite theclient’s store. That adversely affected the store’s profits, andcontributed to its closure.In the light of all the contributing factors, we considered itreasonable for the Department to meet, in broad terms, 20% ofa properly substantiated claim for losses from the store, togetherwith any additional unnecessary costs that it had incurred in tryingto have the Department’s error corrected. The Department agreedto apologise to the retailer and to make a payment in line withour recommendations.16
Parliamentray and health service ombudsman annuall report 2007/084Case StudyDelay on asylum decisioncaused distress and hardshipMs V, a Nigerian national, is thought to have arrived in the UKsome time during 1988-89, to join her father, Mr V. In February 1993the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office(IND) told Mr V that he had no basis to stay in the UK and wouldhave to leave immediately. IND had no further contact withMs V or her father until February 1998, when solicitors requestedfurther leave to remain, on the basis of Mr V’s marriage to aFrench national.Mr V was subsequently granted a European Economic Area (EEA)family residence permit until 10 February 2004. In February 2004Mr V applied for indefinite leave to remain as the family memberof an EEA national (with Ms V included as a dependant). In MayMs V applied for indefinite leave to remain based on her longresidence, and shortly afterwards IND refused Mr V’s application.They wrote to ask Ms V for further information in support of herapplication on 27 September 2006. In October IND was informedthat Ms V was pregnant. In December Ms V applied for incomesupport and other maternity-related benefits but was ineligiblebecause she had no National Insurance number. In January 2007Ms V told what was by now the Border and Immigration Agencyshe was homeless and pregnant. In March the Agency requestedfurther information in support of Ms V’s application.Ms V complained to the Ombudsman about the Agency’s delayin deciding her application, which she said had meant she couldnot obtain stable employment or claim state benefits. Her debtswere growing. She was almost nine months pregnant with twinsand concerned that her children would be removed if herapplication was not determined.We upheld Ms V’s complaint. Apart from its letter of27 September 2006 (which Ms V did not receive because itwas sent to the wrong address) the Agency took no meaningfulaction on her case between May 2004 and March 2007, and didnot consider prioritising it on learning that she was pregnant andhomeless. Although the Agency subsequently granted Ms Vindefinite leave to remain on 17 May 2007, that did not completelyremedy the injustice to her, as we considered that she would haveobtained a National Insurance number and successfully claimedbenefits, but for the Agency’s maladministration. The Agencyagreed to consider a claim from Ms V equivalent to incomesupport forgone between 1 January and 17 May 2007 andequivalent to child benefit and child tax credit forgone between20 March and 17 May 2007. In addition the Agency accepted thatMs V had been inconvenienced at a time when she could havebeen considered to be particularly vulnerable, and awarded hera consolatory payment of £300.The need for local leadershipPublic service providers should operatea complaint handling service that is fitfor purpose and responsive, and theirsenior managers should understand thevalue of taking on board the lessonslearnt from complaints. For these thingsto happen, it is necessary for managersat all levels to take a lead in ensuring thatcomplaints are taken seriously andhandled properly. However, this oftendoes not happen.Lack of local leadership in complainthandling by senior managers withindepartments and agencies was anotherclear thread running through ourcasework in 2007-08. In some cases itwas a factor in a complainant’s decisionto refer a complaint to us, when timelylocal resolution might well have beenpossible if a senior manager had takenappropriate action at an earlier stage.For instance, in the case of Ms V,a Nigerian national, the Border andImmigration Agency took no meaningfulaction on her asylum application foralmost three years and did not considerprioritising it even after she told themshe was pregnant and homeless. Leavewas subsequently granted, but it is clearthat local leadership was sadly lackingboth in the initial handling of the caseand in the Agency’s reaction to Ms V’sconcerns about the long delay inprocessing her application.17
Page 3 and 4: Annual Report2007-085th Report - Se
Page 5: previously identified. I am pleased
Page 8 and 9: Figure 1 continuedTop 5 departments
Page 11 and 12: Parliamentary and health service om
Page 15: Parliamentray and health service om
Page 27: Parliamentary and health service om
Page 30 and 31: 13Case StudyMishandled corresponden
Page 49: Parliamentary and health service om
Page 52 and 53: Figure 7Joint investigations conduc
Page 54 and 55: We have had continuing contact with
Page 56 and 57: abc56
Page 58 and 59: 405%Telephone405%Telephone403%Writt
Page 60 and 61: Figure 9 continuedTop 5 Parliamenta
Page 62 and 63: Figure 11aNumber of types of closed
Page 64 and 65: Figure 13Top 5 departments by numbe
Page 66 and 67:
Figure 15Top 5 departments by numbe
Page 68 and 69:
Figure 16Health investigations repo
Page 70 and 71:
Figure 19: Parliamentary complaints
Page 72 and 73:
Figure 19 continued: Parliamentary
Page 74 and 75:
Figure 19 continued: Parliamentary
Page 76 and 77:
Figure 20: Distribution of continui
Page 78 and 79:
Figure 22: Distribution of health c
Page 80 and 81:
Judicial reviews of our decisionsan
Page 82 and 83:
Applying our Principles to ourown w
Page 84 and 85:
Capturing, organising and sharingou
Page 86 and 87:
abc86
Page 88 and 89:
Financial reviewPHSO’s net operat
Page 90 and 91:
Balance sheet as at 31 March 200831
Page 92 and 93:
The Board as at March 2008Ann Abrah
Page 94 and 95:
The Executive BoardAn Executive Boa
show all

Annual Report 2007-08 - the Parliamentary and Health Service ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?