aamstudent
Registered User
- Messages
- 53
So we have finally come to the end of the process, and she got the result that she should have had at the beginning.
I am very surprised at the type of very basic errors we encountered and the level of persistence needed when engaging with the DSP to try to resolve the process.
To recap, I was assisting a relative with her OAP application.
The first decision was wrong. For someone retiring in 2025, they get the higher of Method 1 (Total Contributions Approach- TCA) or Method 2 (90% of Yearly Average – YA – and 10% of TCA). They gave her Method 2 even though Method 1 was slightly higher. Given that they had to calculate both TCA and YA to get Method 2 so they had the full TCA figure, they obviously never checked Method 1 against Method 2.
Taking the advice kindly given here, she requested a review. She also appealed and she made an FOI Request.
In response to the FoI request, they sent out all correspondence that she already had. That didn’t help. They refused to issue the calculations on the basis that these are not held on the system. They refused to give some other unspecified info on that basis that it related to a third party.
As regards the calculations, I don’t believer FoI only applies to info on the system. Secondly, a professional organisation should have kept records even if only for an audit trail.
As regards info relating to a third party, it's hard to understand what third party information could be on the file of someone applying for the old age pension. It can only relate to children for whom she was getting home caring credits. In that case, she was the responsible person. It makes no sense to me that this information is blocked.
The outcome of the review was an increase of about 50% of what I had calculated as her entitlement.
Interestingly, with the correspondence, they provided the calculations and her social insurance record. Obviously, there was no barrier to releasing the calculation this time. However, the Social Insurance Record differed from what was downloaded earlier in the year and the version that had been provided with the very first decision. The difference was that this time she got less home caring credits – right in the middle of her home caring periods.
There was a paragraph in the covering letter explaining her entitlement to home caring credits and stating that her credits would fill out her overall credits in relevant years. So it is hard to understand how they could reduce those credits and how it was not picked up in any check.
She, once again, requested a review and appealed again, albeit reluctantly. This time, the decision was amended to the first figure that I had calculated. So the story ends.
Left on her own, my relative would have given up several times. The amounts involved were small and she does not have an appetite for pursuing something like this. I wonder how many other pensioners lose out because of these basic errors and because they settle for what they get rather than what they are entitled to.
For me it was an interesting, learning experience. It seems to me to be a process where AI could be applied effectively to improve efficiencies. There was a lot of time wasted and correspondence created that was totally unnecessary.
Thanks to the other posters for all the help I got here.
I am very surprised at the type of very basic errors we encountered and the level of persistence needed when engaging with the DSP to try to resolve the process.
To recap, I was assisting a relative with her OAP application.
The first decision was wrong. For someone retiring in 2025, they get the higher of Method 1 (Total Contributions Approach- TCA) or Method 2 (90% of Yearly Average – YA – and 10% of TCA). They gave her Method 2 even though Method 1 was slightly higher. Given that they had to calculate both TCA and YA to get Method 2 so they had the full TCA figure, they obviously never checked Method 1 against Method 2.
Taking the advice kindly given here, she requested a review. She also appealed and she made an FOI Request.
In response to the FoI request, they sent out all correspondence that she already had. That didn’t help. They refused to issue the calculations on the basis that these are not held on the system. They refused to give some other unspecified info on that basis that it related to a third party.
As regards the calculations, I don’t believer FoI only applies to info on the system. Secondly, a professional organisation should have kept records even if only for an audit trail.
As regards info relating to a third party, it's hard to understand what third party information could be on the file of someone applying for the old age pension. It can only relate to children for whom she was getting home caring credits. In that case, she was the responsible person. It makes no sense to me that this information is blocked.
The outcome of the review was an increase of about 50% of what I had calculated as her entitlement.
Interestingly, with the correspondence, they provided the calculations and her social insurance record. Obviously, there was no barrier to releasing the calculation this time. However, the Social Insurance Record differed from what was downloaded earlier in the year and the version that had been provided with the very first decision. The difference was that this time she got less home caring credits – right in the middle of her home caring periods.
There was a paragraph in the covering letter explaining her entitlement to home caring credits and stating that her credits would fill out her overall credits in relevant years. So it is hard to understand how they could reduce those credits and how it was not picked up in any check.
She, once again, requested a review and appealed again, albeit reluctantly. This time, the decision was amended to the first figure that I had calculated. So the story ends.
Left on her own, my relative would have given up several times. The amounts involved were small and she does not have an appetite for pursuing something like this. I wonder how many other pensioners lose out because of these basic errors and because they settle for what they get rather than what they are entitled to.
For me it was an interesting, learning experience. It seems to me to be a process where AI could be applied effectively to improve efficiencies. There was a lot of time wasted and correspondence created that was totally unnecessary.
Thanks to the other posters for all the help I got here.