How finance can be utilized in best manner due to process of TDS ?

On 23 October 1998 DSS told the Ombudsman’s staff that they had reconsidered the question of compensation but had decided to maintain their original decision that it was not appropriate. DSS said that the total period of delay did not amount to one third of the time taken to process the case. They said that the DAT’s decision of 26 November 1997 had been based on fresh evidence provided by the report of an examining medical practitioner.

My investigation has shown a number of shortcomings in the performance of those bodies involved in Mr X’s case. Ideal first with shortcomings in BA’s performance. Mr X asked for a claim pack for DLA in March 1992 and BA quickly responded to that request. It was July before an AO considered Mr X’s application and asked to see his mobility allowance file. A further three months went by before the AO was told that the file was not available.

Mr X said that BA had asked him for details of his Tax Depreciation Schedule previous GP and had led him to believe that they would contact that doctor for a statement about his medical condition.I have found no reason to doubt Mr X’s account, and it is unfortunate that BA did not act on the details of his previous GP which Mr X had provided. All in all, it took BA eight months to decide Mr X’s application for the care component of DLA. In December 1992 Mr X challenged the decision to disallow his claim. BE treated that as a request for a second tier review but they took nearly four months to carry it out.

In July 1993 he asked BA to provide him with copies of the reports of medical examinations he said had been carried out in 1988 and 1989, as he wished to use them to support his appeal.On 20 January 1994 a DAT upheld the decision that Mr X was not entitled to the care component of DLA. Mr X applied to have that decision set aside, but it was six months before a DAT considered and rejected that application.