Veterans UK

4. Mr O complains VUK will not allow him to complain about the disparity in the data collected during hearing tests completed separately in 2000.

5. Mr O says VUK not allowing him to complain has caused him significant distress and taken a toll on his mental health.

6. Mr O would like VUK to consider his complaint.

7. Mr O saw a specialist in 2023 as he experienced hearing loss which believes happened during his active service in the Royal Navy. He said that a specialist’s report noted that the disparity in the Pure Tone Audiometry tests (PTA, a test to assess hearing ability and detect hearing loss) readings from 2000 was so large that one of the readings must have been incorrect.

8. Mr O says a private clinician completed a Cortical Evoked Response Audiometry test (CERA, a type of hearing test) which he says proves his hearing loss occurred during his military service. He says the specialist said he could not have got his hearing injury any other way than continued exposure to very loud noise.

9. After seeing the specialist, Mr O applied for a pension from the War Pension Scheme (WPS) at VUK in 2023. The WPS provides veterans with financial support for any injury, illness or death which was caused or made worse by their service in the Armed Forces before April 2005. The amount of pension the WPS awards depends on the level of disablement. As part of the assessment process, medical advisers (MAs) at VUK provide medical advice and guidance to assess and determine the level of disablement for veterans.

10. Mr O applied for the WPS, but VUK rejected the award in April 2023. It stated he could approach a tribunal to appeal the decision.

11. The First-tier Tribunal upheld VUK’s decision in April 2024. The Tribunal had access to the PTA tests from 2000 and referenced these in the statement of reasons for dismissing the appeal. Mr O believed while the judge had access to medical evidence during the Tribunal, they did not analyse or notice the disparity between them. A Tribunal would refer to any guidance in place at the time of the trial.

12. Mr O then requested permission to approach the Upper tier Tribunal to appeal the decision. The Ministry of Justice refused this in August 2024.

13. In March 2025 Mr O complained to VUK about the MA not comparing the data from his PTA tests taken in April and May 2000. He said had the MA done this when considering his request for a disablement pension in 2023, they would have noted a significant disparity and would have awarded him a pension.

14. Mr O also wrote to the appeals team at VUK in March 2025 to review the decision. It said that the information Mr O provided to the tribunal was very detailed and VUK’s medical adviser and policy group had reviewed this several times. VUK said, as there was no new medical evidence, it could not pass on his case to the claims team to see if there were suitable grounds to review the Tribunal decision.

15. In May 2025, Mr O tried to raise a stage two complaint regarding the disparity in the PTA tests completed in 2000. VUK responded by email to say, ‘Unfortunately the complaint resolution team are unable to consider, as a complaint, disagreements of a decision, the reasons for the decision or the evidence used to reach a decision where there is a right of appeal’.

16. The VUK appeals team also said that although there was no ongoing appeal (as that had already taken place) they resubmitted Mr O’s case to the MA. It said this would give the MA chance to comment on the issues he raised. The MA confirmed that the further evidence Mr O referred to did not change the decision.

17. In October 2025, the complaints team wrote to Mr O to repeat the MA review and told him he could raise a complaint if he felt VUK had not handled his claim correctly, but he would have to clearly describe how he considered VUK had not followed the correct administrative process. It also included a link to its website to signpost his complaint. The webpage also includes information about the PHSO and how to raise a complaint with us.

18. VUK also said, ‘the complaints process cannot look into your continued dissatisfaction with the decision made or the evidence used as this matter was concluded when your appeal was heard’.

Issue 1 - Headline of the complaint component

21. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are indications that something went wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. In this case, we have done this and found no indications of failings in VUK’s decision not to allow Mr O to complain.

22. We also think that if VUK had considered Mr O’s request in more detail or given Mr O a more formal response, the outcome would not have been any different.

23. Our complaint standards say, ‘Organisations clearly publicise and promote how service users can raise complaints in a range of ways that suits them and meets their specific needs. They make it easy for everybody to understand how the process works. This includes being clear about who can make a complaint and what will happen’.

24. They also say, ‘Organisations make sure colleagues can identify when issues raised in a complaint should be (or are being) addressed via another route at the earliest opportunity, so a co-ordinated approach can be taken. Other possible routes include appeals, reference or statutory review by a tribunal or action in a court of law or disciplinary process. Colleagues know when and how to seek guidance on such matters so they can give service users information on the relevant process and explain where they can get advice and support’.

25. Our Principles of Good Administration say, ‘Public bodies should do what they say they are going to do. If they make a commitment to do something, they should keep to it or explain why they cannot’. They also say that ‘Public bodies should give people information and, if appropriate, advice that is clear, accurate, complete, relevant and timely’.

26. In summary, the above standards say that as part of the complaints process, VUK should explain clearly any reasons why they cannot consider an issue.

27. The VUK complaints procedure on its website says, ‘We cannot investigate complaints:

• that are, or have been subject to legal proceedings, including legal settlements • about a decision made under the War Pension or Armed Forces Compensation Schemes where there is a right of appeal’.

28. Mr O says there is a significant disparity between two PTA tests completed approximately six weeks apart in 2000 around the time he left the armed forces. Mr O says when he made a claim for a pension in 2023, the MA at VUK did not compare PTA test data which led to him not receiving an award.

29. He said that guidance since that time has changed and a different type of hearing test would be more reliable. As such he wants VUK to consider his complaint about this and believes this is his only route now for his concerns to be heard.

30. VUK said the complaint was about the decision not to award him a disablement pension. It said this decision was appealable and the tribunal had considered the medical evidence. It said that because of this it cannot consider Mr O’s complaint. VUK also said it had asked its MA to review the disparity in the data once more. The MA said after reviewing Mr O’s concerns again, the award would not have changed.

31. What is not in dispute is that the decision VUK made in 2023 was an appealable one. This means that the route to challenge it was via the courts.

32. In considering the issue about whether VUK should allow Mr O to complain, we cannot explore the ruling the tribunal judge made to uphold the original decision. This is because a tribunal decision is legally binding unless successfully challenged. Any complaint made to VUK or to us cannot therefore overturn any decision the courts make.

33. It is not for us to decide if the tribunal judge looked at or analysed the PTA tests from 2000. It is the judge’s decision which evidence they consider and how they consider it. We can see the tribunal judge had access to the PTA tests completed in 2000.

34. What we need to decide is whether VUK should have considered Mr O’s complaint.

35. Mr O’s complaint in March 2025 was about the disparity in PTA test data and the MA not comparing the tests during the WPS assessment process in 2023. The PTA data was presented as evidence to the tribunal and the judge referred to it. As such, Mr O’s complaint is very closely connected to the original appealable decision. Mr O needed to present any issues with the medical evidence to the tribunal.

36. The complaints process or any maladministration found within it, will not be a route to challenge the court’s decision or to overturn it.

37. VUK’s complaints policy clearly states it cannot investigate a complaint about a decision made under the War Pension or Armed Forces Compensation Schemes where there is a right of appeal.

38. While we appreciate Mr O’s view, that this not connected to an appealable decision, we can see this is not the case. His complaint is about the evidence used in the decision and that which was later presented to a tribunal.

39. VUK has also explained why it cannot look at his complaint. It has explained clearly the type of complaints it can look at and signposted him to its website. The appeals team also forwarded his concerns to the MA to check the evidence again.

40. We recognise it is very difficult for Mr O to manage his hearing loss on a daily basis. We also appreciate Mr O is frustrated VUK has not considered his complaint.

41. If VUK had reviewed his complaint in any more detail, we also think it would have arrived at the same conclusion and decided not to look it. We think it would not be proportionate for VUK to provide a detailed formal complaint response to an issue it cannot look at.

42. We therefore think that VUK was correct not to investigate Mr O’s complaint. As such we think it acted within our Principles, our Complaint Standards and within its own complaints policy.

43. As we have not found VUK has done anything wrong, we will take no further action on this complaint.

44. We know the events Mr O has complained to us about, alongside the VUK and tribunal decisions have all taken a toll on his mental health. We also acknowledge it has taken a long time for Mr O to come to terms with his disability and to manage this. While we cannot help further with this complaint issue, we wish him well for a restful retirement.