This is a new service – your feedback will help us to improve it.

Complaints about UK Government departments and other public organisations

Your filters returned 33 results

Use the search filters below to refine the results and find complaints of interest. Search results are listed with the most recent first. 
Complex complaints with two or more parts about one or multiple organisations may appear more than once in the search results.

High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd (Ref: P-001071)

Report29-Jun-21Not upheldProperty and planning

Summary:

Mr and Mrs P complain about HS2 and Department for Transport’s (DfT) handling of their property purchase between 2014 and 2017. In particular, Mr and Mrs P said DfT mismanaged their expectations about the approach to the acquisition of their property. Mrs and Mrs P also state HS2 and DfT gave them inconsistent and contradictory information about their property acquisition. Mr and Mrs P also state the ICA did not consider Mr and Mrs P’s evidence with equal weight to that of HS2 and failed to pick up inaccuracies in HS2’s evidence, and that the ICA should not have said HS2’s complaint handling was robust and good when HS2 had failed to answer their questions and missed procedural timescales for responding to complaints.

High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd (Ref: P-001071)

Report29-Jun-21UpheldProperty and planning

Summary:

Mr and Mrs P complain about HS2 and Department for Transport’s (DfT) handling of their property purchase between 2014 and 2017. In particular, Mr and Mrs P said DfT mismanaged their expectations about the approach to the acquisition of their property. Mrs and Mrs P also state HS2 and DfT gave them inconsistent and contradictory information about their property acquisition. Mr and Mrs P also state the ICA did not consider Mr and Mrs P’s evidence with equal weight to that of HS2 and failed to pick up inaccuracies in HS2’s evidence, and that the ICA should not have said HS2’s complaint handling was robust and good when HS2 had failed to answer their questions and missed procedural timescales for responding to complaints.

High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd (Ref: P-001071)

Report29-Jun-21Partly upheldProperty and planning

Summary:

Mr and Mrs P complain about HS2 and Department for Transport’s (DfT) handling of their property purchase between 2014 and 2017. In particular, Mr and Mrs P said DfT mismanaged their expectations about the approach to the acquisition of their property. Mrs and Mrs P also state HS2 and DfT gave them inconsistent and contradictory information about their property acquisition. Mr and Mrs P also state the ICA did not consider Mr and Mrs P’s evidence with equal weight to that of HS2 and failed to pick up inaccuracies in HS2’s evidence, and that the ICA should not have said HS2’s complaint handling was robust and good when HS2 had failed to answer their questions and missed procedural timescales for responding to complaints.

UK Visas and Immigration (Ref: P-001065)

Report17-May-21Not upheldDelay

Summary:

Mr Z complains on behalf of his wife, Mrs Z, that UKVI incorrectly processed her application to change her tier 2 visa to a spouse visa as it did not make a decision within 24 hours, although he had paid an extra £800 for the priority service, requested irrelevant bank statements and did not advise them on how to meet and exemplify the financial requirements for the visa and finally did not send the bundle of evidence to the first-tier tribunal within the required six weeks. Mr Z says he and Mrs Z did not receive the priority service he paid for and that UKVI’s decision to request incorrect information led to it rejecting his appeal which meant they had to unnecessarily appeal to the first-tier tribunal.

UK Visas and Immigration (Ref: P-001065)

Report17-May-21Partly upheldDelay

Summary:

Mr Z complains on behalf of his wife, Mrs Z, that UKVI incorrectly processed her application to change her tier 2 visa to a spouse visa as it did not make a decision within 24 hours, although he had paid an extra £800 for the priority service, requested irrelevant bank statements and did not advise them on how to meet and exemplify the financial requirements for the visa and finally did not send the bundle of evidence to the first-tier tribunal within the required six weeks. Mr Z says he and Mrs Z did not receive the priority service he paid for and that UKVI’s decision to request incorrect information led to it rejecting his appeal which meant they had to unnecessarily appeal to the first-tier tribunal.

Department for Work and Pensions (Ref: P-001062)

Report07-Apr-21Not upheldUniversal Credit

Summary:

Mr N complains that DWP did not properly act on his request that it pay him directly as the landlord of Property A. This is a property he let to Universal Credit recipients. He also complains that he asked DWP to pay him directly as the landlord of Property C, but it took 5 months for it to act on this request and that as a result, DWP wrongly paid the housing element of University Credit to his tenants. In turn, his tenants did not pay their rent to him. Mr N says this means he has lost approximately £2,300 in unpaid rent at Property A and £1,990 at Property C.

Department for Work and Pensions (Ref: P-001062)

Report07-Apr-21UpheldUniversal Credit

Summary:

Mr N complains that DWP did not properly act on his request that it pay him directly as the landlord of Property A. This is a property he let to Universal Credit recipients. He also complains that he asked DWP to pay him directly as the landlord of Property C, but it took 5 months for it to act on this request and that as a result, DWP wrongly paid the housing element of University Credit to his tenants. In turn, his tenants did not pay their rent to him. Mr N says this means he has lost approximately £2,300 in unpaid rent at Property A and £1,990 at Property C.

Public Health England (Ref: P-001054)

Report10-Aug-20UpheldCommunication

Summary:

Mrs A had breast cancer, resulting in a mastectomy, removal of lymph nodes along with radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and complains about the breast screening letters she received from PHE subsequently. She says they incorrectly informed her that she had previously missed a screening invitation. Mrs A says the letters from PHE caused her worry and distress for 12 months, thinking that she might never have had breast cancer, or it may have been identified much sooner, if she had not missed a screening, and that she also thought she might never have needed such invasive treatment and surgery if she had not missed a screening.

Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (Ref: P-001053)

Report17-Sep-20UpheldComplaint handling

Summary:

Mr A says after his release from HMP D it did not forward a number of letters sent to him at the prison concerning his student loan. Mr A says whilst the loan was his responsibility, he needed those letters to remind him to update his details and defer his student loan. Mr A complains that the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) decision to decline to investigate his complaint due to its time limit was unreasonable and did not take all the evidence into consideration. Mr A says he was both distressed and frustrated to have been told his complaint fell outside of the PPO’s timescales.

HMP Wakefield (Ref: P-001053)

Report17-Sep-20Partly upheldAdministration - Administration other

Summary:

Mr A says after his release from HMP D it did not forward a number of letters sent to him at the prison concerning his student loan. Mr A says whilst the loan was his responsibility, he needed those letters to remind him to update his details and defer his student loan. Mr A complains that the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) decision to decline to investigate his complaint due to its time limit was unreasonable and did not take all the evidence into consideration. Mr A says he was both distressed and frustrated to have been told his complaint fell outside of the PPO’s timescales.