WIREDGOV

The Parliamentary Ombudsman, Sir Michael Buckley, today published a report on the 81 investigations completed by his office between April and September 2001. 72 of the complaints investigated were upheld, at least in part. A further 417 cases were concluded without issuing a statutory report. The complaints involved 18 government departments or other public bodies, with the greatest number of complaints being made against the Department for Work and Pensions and its agencies. Other departments which were the subject of several complaints included the Legal Services Commission, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and the Inland Revenue.

Application for asylum
One case (C.1293/01) involved the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND). The Ombudsman upheld a complaint that that IND had wrongly refused an application for asylum on the grounds that a man (Mr D) had failed to return his evidence form in time. In fact the form had been returned but IND had not linked it to the man's file. The Ombudsman found that this was a recurrent problem and that as a result a number of incorrect refusals had been issued. He also found that IND had decided Mr D's application too early, had delayed changing the flawed decision for almost six months after his solicitors had drawn the matter to their attention, and had failed to reply promptly to their letters and complaints. IND apologised to Mr D and offered him an ex gratia payment of £50. They also put in place procedures to make it less likely that flawed decisions would be made in the future.

Liability to UK tax
One case (C.28/01) upheld by the Ombudsman concerned the advice given to a professor by the Inland Revenue about the tax implications of taking paid leave to do research and teaching in the USA. The professor was told that there were no leaflets explaining the term 'foreign income deduction', although such a leaflet was available, and he was led to believe that the deduction would be given solely against any foreign income. As a result, he returned to the UK after 11 months, when he could have stayed away for just over a year and paid no UK income tax. The Revenue accepted that their failures had caused the professor financial loss, which they agreed to make good.

Eligibility for legal aid
(C.1872/00) Mrs H complained that the Legal Aid Board (LAB) (now the Legal Services Commission) had twice granted her opponent legal aid when he was not financially eligible. They had also dealt badly with her subsequent complaints about the matter, and caused her to incur unnecessary legal costs. The Ombudsman criticised LAB for destroying some case files. This meant that he was unable to establish whether or not the original grant of legal aid had been correct. However, he found that LAB had been wrong in not discharging the legal aid certificate immediately after a reassessment of eligibility was made, and in issuing a further certificate to Mrs H's opponent. LAB apologised to Mrs H and made her an ex gratia payment of £1,700. They also amended their computer system to try to prevent a recurrence of similar errors.

Another case (C.195/01) involving LAB was also upheld by the Ombudsman. A woman complained that LAB had lost the title deeds to her property and she was therefore unable to proceed with the sale of her house to cash buyers. This caused her financial loss, as she was forced to take out a mortgage to buy her new property instead of being able to pay cash. The Ombudsman criticised LAB for failing to recognise sooner that they had lost the deeds and for apparently misleading the woman into believing that their files for the relevant year had been destroyed. He also found that LAB's failings had contributed to the woman's additional costs and that they should be held responsible for them. LAB apologised and agreed to pay the woman over £1,780 compensation.

Doctor's medical examination of a claimant for disability living allowance
The Ombudsman upheld a complaint against the Benefits Agency (C.567/01) from a woman who had undergone a medical examination in connection with the renewal of her claim for disability living allowance. Mrs X complained that the doctor's manner had been aggressive and inappropriate, and that the examination had left her feeling angry, degraded and humiliated. The Ombudsman's investigation uncovered the fact that there had been a high level of similar complaints against the same doctor. This had apparently not alerted Medical Services, who carry out medical examinations on behalf of the Agency, that they faced an escalating problem over the doctor's performance. The Ombudsman found that Medical Services' response to the complaint had been wholly inadequate. Following his intervention, the Agency agreed to make Mrs X a payment of £350 for the severe distress and inconvenience she had suffered. Medical Services took steps to improve their complaint-handling and to monitor the quality of doctors' work. The Agency also introduced arrangements to monitor Medical Services' performance in handling complaints.

Child maintenance
The Child Support Agency (CSA) received a mother's application for child support maintenance for her three children early in 1994 (C.392/01). Despite her promptings, CSA took no action on her case until the youngest child became 19 and ceased to be a qualifying child for maintenance purposes. CSA then closed the case but did not tell the mother. When she found out and complained, CSA offered her £250. The woman complained to the Ombudsman. He found that the woman had been badly let down by CSA and, following his intervention, the Agency paid her over £8,000 plus interest for her financial loss and the severe distress she had suffered.

Passports for pets
The Ombudsman received his first complaint about the implementation of the new passport for pets scheme (C.1002/01). Mr O complained that the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had failed to implement the pilot Pet Travel Scheme properly and that as a result he had to put his dog into quarantine unnecessarily on his return from Spain on the first day of the new scheme. The Ombudsman did not uphold the complaint. He found that the Spanish documentation the man was able to produce did not meet the requirements of the scheme. It was the Spanish authorities, not the Ministry, who had been responsible for the lack of official health certification in Spain immediately before the implementation of the new scheme. However, as the man had sufficient Spanish veterinary documentation to prove that his dog was healthy, he was able to bring it to England, where it was released early from quarantine under the scheme.

NOTES TO EDITORS

The Parliamentary Ombudsman, Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations, April - September 2001, HC 665.

Press copies of the reports are available from the Press Office: Tel: 020 7217 4077, Fax: 020 7217 4079. They are also available on the website - www.ombudsman.org.uk

The Ombudsman investigates complaints from members of the public, referred by MPs, against government departments and agencies. He also polices the Code on Access to Government Information. More details are given in the home page of his website.

Millbank Tower,
Millbank,
London SW1P 4QP