Monthly Archives: September 2015

Why do TDS procedure is been running with the rules and regulation ?

A SSC heard at the same time the appeals against the DATs’ decisions of 20 January 1994 and 28 April 1995. He decided that the DATs decision of 20 January 1994 had been erroneous in law, and that the DATs decision of 28 April 1995 was a nullity as it had been given without jurisdiction. In November 1997 a DAT re-heard Mr X’s case and decided that he was entitled to the highest rate of the care component of DLA from 6 April 1992.

In January 1998 BA paid Mr X arrears of DLA for the period 6 April 1992 to 13 January 1998. The Chief Executive acknowledged that there had been delays inĀ Investment Property DepreciationĀ handling Mr X’s case. He said that it was clear that Mr X has not received the standard of service that he has a right to expect. The Chief Executive went on to say that BA had considered whether compensation was due for the delay in paying benefit, but they felt that delays attributable to DSS did not constitute a significant part of the time taken to deal with the case.

The majority of the delays had been due to the adjudication process rather than the result of any departmental error. In conclusion the Chief Executive said that he had asked for a review of the decision not to pay compensation. The head of IT’s Secretariat apologised for the delays in dealing with Mr X’s appeal. The Office of the Secretary to the OSSC apologised for the fact that the case had been under consideration by OSSC for a considerable period of time.

On 6 June 1998 BA awarded CP to both Mr and Mrs X, backdated to 6 April 1992. The award of CP to Mrs X was payable from 6 April 1992 in respect of her care of Mr X, and CP was payable to both Mr and Mrs X from 22 February 1993 in respect of their care of each other. In reply to a question from the Ombudsman’s staff, BA said that there had been problems in determining the effective date of the award of CP to Mrs X.