Background
The complainant in this case was granted a Jobseeker Support benefit. In applying for that benefit, he declared that he had previously received an annuity payment from a UK pension scheme. His benefit was initially paid at the full rate but Work and Income, a part of the Ministry of Social Development (the Ministry), later decided to charge the annuity payment as annual income against his benefit. This resulted in a reduction to the complainant’s weekly benefit, though he was not informed of this decision.
The complainant sought a review by the Ministry’s Benefits Review Committee, which upheld Work and Income’s decision. He then appealed to the Social Security Appeal Authority. The Authority upheld the complainant’s appeal, and decided that Work and Income should not have charged income against his benefit that was received prior to the commencement of that benefit. However, annuity payments received after the commencement of the benefit should be charged as income. The Authority recommended an ex gratia payment to the complainant for the losses and inconvenience caused by the Ministry’s actions.
Shortly after the Authority’s decision, the Ministry wrote to the complainant apologising for its error and the inadequate service he had received, and advising that arrears had been paid to his bank account.
One year later, the Ministry made an ex gratia payment to the complainant in accordance with the Authority’s decision and issued a further apology.
The complainant considered that the Ministry’s apology was insufficient. He also complained about the time it took the Ministry to decide on his ex gratia payment, and the quantum of that payment. This case note focuses on the adequacy of the Ministry’s apology.
Investigation
The Ombudsman noted that an effective apology should incorporate each of the following elements:
- recognition of the problem, and that the affected person has suffered harm;
- an acceptance of responsibility for the problem and for the harm caused;
- an explanation of the cause of the problem, or a promise to investigate the cause;
- a sincere expression of regret; and
- a statement of the action taken to address the problem, and an undertaking that it will not happen again.
The first apology recognised the poor service and lack of communication the complainant had experienced. The letter acknowledged that he had been underpaid and financially disadvantaged, and that this was caused by the Ministry’s error.
The writer made a sincere and repeated apology, and outlined the steps that the Ministry had taken to remedy its error. As a result of the steps taken, arrears were paid directly to the complainant’s bank account. The letter also provided an explanation of the assessment of the complainant’s benefit entitlement from that date forward. Finally, the complainant was encouraged to contact Work and Income should he wish to discuss the matter further.
The second apology, from the Ministry’s Deputy Chief Executive, acknowledged that the Ministry had incorrectly added income to the complainant’s record and failed to inform him of this. It apologised that the Ministry had not met its own standards of service and recognised that the Ministry had a moral obligation to redress this failure. The letter also informed the complainant that an ex gratia payment had been arranged for the impact of the Ministry’s failure.
The Ombudsman concluded that the apologies that had been offered by the Ministry were adequate.
Outcome
The Ombudsman formed the opinion that the wording of the apologies offered by the Ministry were sufficient to address the administrative errors and the problems caused by those errors.
This case note is published under the authority of the Ombudsmen Rules 1989 opens page in this tab. It sets out an Ombudsman’s view on the facts of a particular case. It should not be taken as establishing any legal precedent that would bind an Ombudsman in future.