2009 Small mistakes, big consequences
The Parliamentary Ombudsman has issued a report highlighting the serious consequences of seemingly minor errors by public bodies. “Small mistakes, big consequences” (November 2009) describes several case studies of complaints determined by the ombudsman in which failure to get a decision right at the start, compounded by failure to remedy the mistake promptly and effectively, has had a devastating impact on individuals.
Among the case studies is one in which both the Child Support Agency (CSA) and the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) are criticised. Mr U had wrongly been identified by the CSA as the non-resident parent of two children, and despite his disputing this claim, and despite the CSA accepting it had made an error, it took several years before the agency notified him of this. He had been forced to consult solicitors, his marriage had broken down and he had lost the trust of his children.
The CSA eventually offered him inadequate compensation, and he complained to the ICE about this. The ICE had then wrongly informed him that the compensation offered was the maximum possible. The Parliamentary Ombudsman found maladministration by both the CSA and the ICE. She recommended he be given an apology from both, and that the CSA pay him compensation of £10,000, and the ICE pay him compensation of £250.
This case illustrates the importance of a further rung of scrutiny of the decisions made by independent adjudicators of government agencies. Although the robustness of ICE decisions generally has not been questioned by the ombudsman, in this case they did get it wrong. The case also illustrates the persistence that is required by complainants in order to navigate the many layers of the “super-escalated” complaints procedure involving decisions by public bodies.
Other case studies involve the HM Revenue and Customs, including complaints about tax credits, and Jobcentre Plus regarding a complaint about jobseeker’s allowance.
February 2010
Key website
Parliamentary Ombudsman
