Office of the Public Guardian

6. Mr G complains about the service he received from OPG from August 2023 to November 2024. Specifically, he says OPG:

• delayed responding to his complaints • did not compensate him enough for poor service.

7. Mr G says OPG caused him severe stress and anxiety and took up time away from more important personal issues. He also says he was not compensated enough considering the impact he experienced.

8. Mr G would like service improvements and a financial remedy.

9. In August 2023, Mr G complained to OPG about complications with his LPA applications in October, November and December 2022 and inaccurate letters from OPG in early 2023.

10. In November 2023, OPG sent Mr G a complaint response and authorised a consolatory payment for £30 to compensate for the confusion it caused him.

11. In December 2023, OPG wrote to Mr G and offered a further £20 consolatory payment on top of the £30 it already offered.

12. On 28 October 2024, OPG sent a complaint response to Mr G and offered him a £100 consolatory payment for poor service.

13. On 14 November 2024, OPG sent a payment of £100 to Mr G for ‘delays and errors’.

OPG’s responses to Mr G’s complaints

16. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation got things wrong. If we see it did, we consider whether this had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so, where OPG got things wrong, we saw it had already done enough to put right the impact of these events.

17. Mr G said OPG was very delayed in responding to his complaints. He said he had to keep chasing for responses over a long period of time, and OPG often lost his correspondence which caused further delays.

18. In its final complaint response dated 28 October 2024, OPG apologised for overlooking some of Mr G’s correspondence in previous responses. It also apologised for delays due to failure in its processes, handover errors, so some correspondences were not reassigned to a complaints officer and overlooked.

19. It said it had made improvements to ensure all correspondence is checked by staff, including when staff are on unexpected leaves of absence. It apologised for the stress and anxiety it caused Mr G.

20. We can see indications of failings. OPG did not always respond to Mr G’s complaints in line with the timescales set out in OPG’s complaint procedure. This says, when OPG receives a complaint, it aims to respond within ten working days. If it needs longer, it should contact the complainant to let them know it needs longer.

21. Mr G sent an initial complaint to OPG on 15 August 2023. OPG responded to this complaint on 27 August 2023, within ten working days and in line with OPG’s complaint procedure.

22. Mr G responded on 20 September 2023 and complained again. On 21 November 2023, OPG sent Mr G a further complaint response and offered a consolatory payment for £30 to compensate him for the confusion caused. We saw this response took longer than the time specified in OPG’s complaint procedure.

23. On 6 December 2023, Mr G complained again, saying he was dissatisfied with the consolatory payment offered by OPG due to the stress and wasted time OPG caused him. On 14 December 2023, OPG responded to Mr G and offered a further £20 consolatory payment, so, £50 in total to compensate him. This response was within ten working days of him making his complaint.

24. On 3 January 2024, Mr G replied and complained the £50 was not acceptable to him and he was not satisfied with OPG’s response. On 11 March 2024, Mr G emailed OPG saying he had not received a response. On 11 March 2024, OPG replied saying they would respond by 22 March 2024. On 8, 15 and 25 April 2024 and 10 June 2024, Mr G wrote to OPG saying he had not had a response.

25. On 18 June 2024, OPG sent a complaint response to Mr G, addressing the email he sent on 10 June 2024. OPG offered a £50 consolatory payment for the delays and level of service it had provided.

26. On 1 July 2024, Mr G sent a follow up complaint to OPG’s 18 June response. He said the cheque it issued in November 2023 was no longer valid, and OPG still had not formally responded to his letter dated 3 January 2024. He said he had already sent bank details for the further consolatory payment and OPG had ignored this. He asked for adequate consolatory payments as the £50 was not sufficient.

27. On 30 September 2024, Mr G emailed OPG saying he had not had a response to his communication on 1 July 2024.

28. On 28 October 2024, OPG sent its final complaint response to Mr G. It apologised his complaint on 1 July 2024 was overlooked and not assigned to a complaints officer. OPG offered a £100 consolatory payment for the delays and stress caused to Mr G. OPG apologised his letter dated 3 January 2024 had been overlooked due to a failure in its process. OPG said it hoped it addressed the concerns he raised in January in this response.

29. As outlined in the timeline above, Mr G had to chase OPG for a response for six months between January and June 2024. OPG also did not formally respond to his complaint dated 3 January 2024, causing Mr G to have to chase OPG again for a response on 1 July 2024 and 30 September 2024. OPG sent a final response and acknowledged his complaint from January 2024 on 28 October 2024.

30. This meant we saw, between September 2023 and October 2024, OPG consistently did not respond within ten working days to Mr G and did not contact him to let him know its responses would take longer. It also admitted to misplacing, overlooking and not handing over some of his complaints, which caused several delays and his complaints were not looked at for several months.

31. We therefore saw indications of failings in OPG’s response times to Mr G’s complaints. It failed to keep within the timescales outlined in OPG’s complaint procedure.

32. We appreciate, given the delays, this would have caused the stress and anxiety Mr G described in his complaint. We can understand he would want to have his complaints resolved promptly and the delays we have seen link to the impact he describes.

33. Mr G wants OPG to improve its service. He also wants a financial remedy to address this impact. On this basis, we considered whether OPG should and have taken these actions.

34. Our Principles for Remedy say organisations should ensure they learn lessons from poor service. They should act to avoid repeating the poor service. To do so, they can revise procedures, systems, train or supervise their staff, or do any combination of these things.

35. We can see OPG has made improvements to ensure all correspondence is checked by staff, including when staff are on unexpected leaves of absence.

36. This is in line with the kind of remedies our Principles for Remedy recommend. It appears to be a change in OPG’s procedure which reduces the chance of correspondence like the kind Mr G submitted being overlooked due to staff absence and causing delay.

37. Regarding financial remedy, this links to our consideration of the second strand of Mr G’s complaint. OPG offered a financial remedy to address the impact of its delays. Mr G complains OPG has not offered enough. Below, we go on to consider the amount it offered.

Consolatory payments from OPG

38. On 28 October 2024, OPG offered Mr G a £100 consolatory payment for the poor service it provided. On 14 November 2024, OPG sent a payment to Mr G of £100 for ‘delays and errors’.

39. Mr G said £100 was not proportionate to the amount of stress and anxiety OPG had caused him through its poor service. He said he experienced two years of severe stress and anxiety and having to chase and deal with OPG only added to his stress as he was going through difficult personal circumstances.

40. For example, he had to deal with his son’s estate following his death in May 2023. He also had to sort the power of attorney for his wife who had dementia and was also sectioned in September 2023. He also had to undergo several surgeries and hospital stays due to his own ill health during this time period.

41. Having given this matter careful consideration, we saw OPG acted in line with relevant guidelines in deciding on the financial redress it offered Mr G for its delays.

42. OPG’s special payments guidance says in the case of consolatory payments, a payment is offered to acknowledge and apologise for the way that the customer has felt. It is not intended to put a value on the complaint, but rather to recognise the inconvenience experienced by the customer. It says consolatory payments should only be made in circumstances regarded as exceptional by complaint handling staff and will be subject to a cap of £25 unless agreed by the Public Guardian.

43. It says the following may be taken into account when calculating an offer of payment:

• the financial loss the complainant says they have incurred and evidence of the same (if evidence cannot be gathered and the amount is small, then OPG can estimate the reasonableness of the expense up to £30) • very excessive delay (on top of another matter complained of), without OPG having an acceptable reason for the delay on the part of the complainant • the amount does not have to cover all incurred costs, people are expected to spend some of their own money dealing with their business matters • the financial hardship that the complainant shows to be so unreasonable, having regard to their own personal financial circumstances, as to warrant the payment.

44. In line with OPG’s special payments guidance, OPG’s letter offering £100 accounted for the delays Mr G experienced with its complaint handling. Because staff overlooked his correspondence, OPG noted it had no acceptable reason for the delay.

45. OPG considered what hardship Mr G experienced because of the delays. That is, the frustration OPG considered this caused him. We appreciate Mr G describes other stresses he experienced at the time, which we explained in paragraph 40. These link to other personal and family circumstances rather than OPG’s delays. So, we are not critical of OPG considering the main hardship caused by its delays was frustration to Mr G.

46. The factors we described in paragraphs 42 and 43 are factors OPG’s special payments guidance say staff may consider in their decision making.

47. The guidance indicates consolatory payments are to be capped at £25 unless agreed by the Public Guardian. Taking account of the above factors, the £100 consolatory payment OPG gave Mr G went above this cap.

48. As OPG decided on Mr G’s consolatory payment considering factors within and in the way OPG’s special payments guidance recommends, we see no indication of a failing on this issue.

49. This meant we saw OPG has done what we would expect by making improvements and paying Mr G financial remedy in recognition of the delays he experienced. This means there is nothing more we would expect it to do to put right the impact of its delayed complaint handling, and no reason to consider the matter further.

50. We recognise Mr G found the consolatory payment OPG offered disappointing. On this basis, we appreciate he will find our decision regarding this payment disappointing too. We hope we have clearly explained the reasons for our decision.

51. We want to thank Mr G for bringing his complaint to us and we hope our explanation provides Mr G some reassurance on what happened, and we have reached this decision following careful consideration.

1. We have carefully considered Mr G’s complaint about the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG).

2. Considering OPG being delayed in responding to Mr G’s complaints, we have decided OPG has already done enough to put right the impact of these events on Mr G.

3. Considering OPG not compensating Mr G enough for poor service, we have seen no indication anything went seriously wrong.

4. We want to thank Mr G for bringing the complaint to us. We were saddened to hear of the events Mr G complains about and recognise the stress and anxiety he experienced which took time away from personal issues important to him.

5. We hope our explanation provides Mr G with some reassurance regarding his complaint.