Westminster City Council v Haywood (No 2) 2

United Kingdom

Reference: (2000) OPLR 175

This was about a pension payable under the local government severance scheme. A pension had initially been paid of more than that permitted by the relevant regulations. The pension was then reduced accordingly.

The Ombudsman held that it was maladministration to have paid pension at the wrong level and he ordered it to be increased back to the original level paid and in addition ordered GBP 1,000 to be paid for distress.

The High Court held the Ombudsman could not require the local government to pay the higher rate of benefit as this was not allowed under statute. The Court of Appeal subsequently held that there was no justification for the distress award as the case was outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. The Ombudsman could not look at long service awards under a severance scheme and in any event the member had already been compensated by having received pension above his entitlement.

Ombudsman's Second Determination
The relevant regulations were later amended to bring the case within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. Mr Haywood brought the claim again. The Ombudsman held there had been maladministration but no injustice caused by the overpayment to Mr Haywood. The Ombudsman thought the local government should not be able to appeal as no award had been given against it.

Appeal from Second Determination
The High Court said an appeal was permissible as a finding of maladministration represented a slur on the relevant authority. The High Court also decided the amending regulations would apply to claims that arose before they came into force. The High Court thought the regulations had merely created an access to justice not new rights. Another question was whether or not the Ombudsman should have considered the case the second time as judgment had already been given elsewhere. The court decided he could consider it as the Court of Appeal had not decided the case on its merits, only on the basis of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. However it did seem likely that Mr Haywood's claim was time-barred.