Poor complaint handling and investigation

What happened

In spring 2008 Mr V called the Pension Service. According to his recollection of the telephone call, he was essentially told that he could defer his state pension. The advantage of deferring a state pension is that you get a higher pension later on.

In March 2010, Mr V decided to claim his state pension and was told that he had not been able to defer his state pension because he had continued to claim carer's allowance.

Mr V complained that he had been misadvised and asked the Pension Service for a special payment to, in effect, treat matters as if he had been able to defer.

The Pension Service rejected Mr V's claim and ICE upheld that decision.

What we found

Mr V contacted us towards the end of 2013. There was no documentary evidence of what was said during the telephone conversation in April 2008. This was not because of an error by the Pension Service, but because it had routinely destroyed its records at the right time before Mr V realised he had a complaint.

With a lack of evidence, we could not make any clear finding on whether the Pension Service misadvised Mr V during this call. For that reason, we did not uphold this part of the complaint or recommend that the Pension Service should meet Mr V's claim. However, there were failings in the way that the Pension Service and ICE considered this case. Consequently, we partly upheld the complaint.

There were key failings in the Pension Service and ICE's complaint handling.

Mr V had taken a written note of the spring 2008 telephone conversation, but this was no longer available for us to see. However, it had been available to the Pension Service and possibly ICE as well. The Pension Service did not keep a copy of that evidence and neither it, nor ICE, took account of it during its considerations.

The Pension Service noted that there was no trace of the telephone call in spring 2008. However, that was irrelevant because at the time of Mr V's complaint any record of the call would have been routinely destroyed. The absence of a record did not indicate that the call was not made.

The Pension Service said that Mr V had called one telephone number, when in fact he had called another. The number that the Pension Service thought Mr V had called was less likely to give advice on deferring a state pension. We found that the Pension Service's misunderstanding would have affected its decision making.

The Pension Service said that Mr V had had a leaflet prior to his call in spring 2008. It advised customers to call it or to seek financial advice. The Pension Service concluded that Mr V should have sought financial advice. We said that this was not a reasonable conclusion as Mr V's enquiry was straightforward and he had followed the advice in the leaflet by contacting them with his query.

Putting it right

ICE and the Pension Service apologised to Mr V, and each made a consolatory payment of £150 to him for causing Mr V frustration through their poor complaint handling.

The Pension Service also visited Mr V to consider whether he is entitled to receive anything in addition to his basic state pension. In particular, whether he is entitled to receive pension credit and, if so, whether there is potential to backdate that benefit.