IDR and jurisdiction 2

United Kingdom
09/01/2001
Download PDF

Reference: K00453

A member had died and a dispute arose as to which of five dependent children should receive the child’s allowance payable under the scheme. In August 1999 the member’s former wife complained about the apportionment under the Scheme’s IDR procedure. After several letters, the matter was still being considered in June 2000.

In August 2000, the former wife complained to the Ombudsman. Although the IDR procedure had not been exhausted, the Ombudsman held that the decision had been unreasonably delayed and therefore he could exercise his discretion to accept jurisdiction of the case.

The former wife lost on the merits of the claim although she was awarded GBP 500 for distress caused as a result caused by the delay, which amounted to maladministration.

Comment
The case illustrates that schemes do need to work through their IDR procedures in reasonable time and that an award for maladministration may be made in cases of a delay.





Search Filters

Advanced Search

Related content