Veterans UK

3. Mr E complaints about how VUK administered his application for compensation under the AFCS. Mr E complains it initially wrongly categorised his injuries, leading to delays, and did not offer an appropriate compensation award.

4. Mr E says the issues he is complaining about have caused him significant financial hardship as he has been unable to work since being medically discharged from the Army. He tells us he had to claim Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) as he has limited capacity to work and that receiving the correct award of compensation would have helped lessen his financial issues. Mr E also says his mental health has been affected as these issues have being ongoing for so long.

5. Mr E would like VUK to improve its systems so incorrect categorisation of injuries does not occur, and for VUK make decisions more quickly to help relieve financial hardship for ex-service personnel. He would also like a financial award for the added time to finalise his claim and the added stress this has caused him.

6. VUK is responsible for administering compensation and pensions schemes for both serving personnel, veterans and their families, as well as the Veterans Welfare and Defence Transition Services. VUK is part of the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Overall, VUK plays a crucial role in ensuring veterans receive the support and assistance they need after their military service.

7. The AFCS compensates for any injury, illness or death which was caused by service in the Armed Forces on or after 6 April 2005. There are two main types of AFCS awards. The first is a tax-free lump sum payment for pain and suffering. The other type of award is a guaranteed income payment, which is a tax free, index linked monthly payment. It is entirely separate from any other personal accident cover, such as personal accident or life insurance. Any accident cover that an applicant may already hold is not considered when determining an AFCS award.

8. The AFCS is designed to provide compensation, irrespective of fault, across the full range of circumstances in which illness, injury or death may arise as a result of service. It does not seek to affect the right to make a civil claim if an applicant thinks that the injury, illness, or death was caused by the MoD. The AFCS covers all regular service personnel, and members of the reserves for all three services. Individuals can claim whether they are still serving or have left HM Armed Forces.

9. AFCS compensation awards are given by measuring the scale of injuries sustained against the tables contained within the legislation of the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2011 (the Order). Schedule 3 of the Order sets out specific types of injury and grades each type of injury ranging from level one for the most serious injuries to level 15 for the lowest level of injury. Schedule 3 also sets out that each level is awarded a set amount of compensation. This ranges from £650,000 for a level one injury to £1,236 for a level 15 injury.

10. In February 2020 Mr E took part in a military exercise, and on 24 February sustained injuries whilst taking part in the exercise. These injuries were described as a supraspinatus tear right shoulder and non-freezing cold injury. A supraspinatus tear is a tear or rupture of the tendon of the supraspinatus muscle, which is located at the back of the shoulder. A non-freezing cold injury is a general term that includes trench foot and other similar conditions. An injury of this type usually involves injury to the soft tissues, nerves, and vasculature of distal extremities (parts of the body such as arms and legs) from prolonged exposure to wet and/or cold conditions.

11. On 27 May 2020 Mr E submitted a fast track AFCS claim in relation to the injuries he suffered on duty. VUK made its initial assessment of the claim and on 5 November 2020 awarded Mr E a payment of £3,090.00 for a level 14 injury. The injury description listed in table 2 of the Order describes this award was for ‘Non-freezing cold injury which has caused pain in the feet, hands or both, with functional limitation or restriction at 6 weeks and substantial recovery by 12 weeks. Continuing cold sensitivity may be present beyond 12 weeks’.

12. Mr E disputed this level of award as he had already passed the 12 week point without any substantial recovery from his injuries. This award was given approximately eight months after Mr E had suffered the injuries, and so he said that VUK had made mistakes in reaching its decision in his case.

13. On 9 December 2021, after reviewing the award and medical evidence Mr E had provided, VUK made a second award to Mr E. This award was £6,180 for a level 13 injury. The level 13 injury was described as being ‘a non-freezing cold injury which has caused neuropathic pain in the feet, hands or both, with significant functional limitation or restriction at 26 weeks and substantial recovery beyond that time. Continuing cold sensitivity may be present beyond 26 weeks’. This award was given approximately one year and nine months after Mr E sustained his injuries. As Mr E did not agree with the new level of compensation he was awarded, he asked for the decision to be reviewed.

14. On 17 May 2022 Mr E received confirmation he was being medically discharged from the Army on 21 September 2022 in accordance with The Queen’s Regulations for the Army 1975 paragraph 9.387.

15. On 19 October 2022 VUK issued Mr E with its final award decision. After reviewing the relevant medical evidence, its decision of 9 December 2021 to award Mr E compensation for a level 13 injury was upheld, and the award of £6,180.00 was not changed.

16. On 1 February 2023 Mr E made an official complaint to VUK in relation to the level of compensation he had been awarded. Mr E told VUK that he believed receiving compensation for a level 13 injury, which indicates he should recover from in 26 weeks, was not satisfactory as over two years after the injury he had medically discharged from the Army as being unfit for duty on health grounds.

17. On 28 February VUK replied to Mr E’s complaint. VUK addressed Mr E’s complaint and recognised that the initial award was lower than it should have been, and the first award should have been at level 13 instead of level 14. However, it said that as the medical evidence had been reviewed, and as following this review no higher award had been given, VUK would not consider raising the final award above the level 13 award Mr E had received on 9 December 2021.

18. As VUK had recognised it should have awarded Mr E the correct level of compensation sooner, it awarded him £150.00 as a financial remedy for the error it had made. VUK told Mr E that it believed it had rectified its error with its higher award made in December 2021.

19. On 16 March 2023 VUK issued a further complaint reply to Mr E. It explained that it had decided to provide a financial remedy of £150.00 for its error, as this was in line with the criteria and levels for financial remedy provided by our Office. VUK told Mr E it had provided this amount in line with our ‘severity of injustice scale’ level two, as set out in our ‘Guidance on Financial Remedy’. VUK explained this is because it had rectified the lower compensation award error of November 2020 to the correct level in December 2021.

20. On 16 March 2023, as Mr E was not satisfied with the compensation awarded, he raised his complaint to the Independent Complaints Panel (ICP), which was the next stage in the VUK complaints process. The ICP acknowledged Mr E’s complaint on 22 March 2023.

21. On 19 July 2023 the ICP replied to Mr E and apologised for the delay in updating him on his complaint. It explained the VUK complaints process was changing. As a result, the ICP had decided to refer Mr E’s complaint directly to our Office to avoid any further delays.

22. On 25 August 2023, as Mr E had been told he no longer had to go through the ICP process, he approached our Office via his MP.

Mr E complains VUK wrongly categorised his injuries, leading to delays and an appropriate compensation award

26. When we consider a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so, we can see that VUK made an error in its initial handling of Mr E’s application for an award but that it has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.

27. Mr E told us: ‘Compensated £6,180 and medical discharge from 12 years’ service is mentally hard to accept with the injury created from a military exercise on duty. This is without the financial responsibilities that I am unable to earn now. I had a career with promotion and financial trajectory. Due to Exercise […..] in challenging conditions ill equipped and absent duty of care’.

28. Mr E also told us he had contacted VUK several times after the first award given to advise that award had not been made in line with legislation. He told us he believes VUK refused to look at revising the award against the legislation, even after he had made it aware of its mistakes.

29. In his complaint to VUK Mr E told it: ‘VUK admitted to maladministration dating back from 5 November 2020 to present. The compensation offered is £150.00. This represents less than £1 per week. I have been deeply affected by being medically discharged. I am unable to continue the lines of employment that I could prior to February 2020. Offering a very low level 2 remedy just puts into perspective how insignificant VUK find my medical discharge, as a low impact. When in fact it is a life changing condition I have and is still not resolved 3 years later. Since medical discharge I am disadvantaged with employment. I need to claim Employment and Support Allowance and I have been signed off from being fit to work from my new medical centre since December 2022. I am damaged due to service and unable to live a life as I once did from February 2020. The VUK maladministration has and still is having a devastating affect and effect on employability and my quality of life has diminished’.

30. In his complaint to VUK Mr E explained that, since the injury, he has always remained sensitive to the cold and finds that his symptoms are made worse in the slightest cold and wet conditions. He also explained of side effects from prescribed drugs and a corresponding negative impact on his daily life.

31. In its complaint replies VUK told Mr E: ‘I have contacted the AFCS team and sought advice from the senior Medical Adviser with regards to your claim for Maladministration. On review of the information supplied I do accept that maladministration has occurred with regards to the incorrect level of compensation being awarded. I fully understand and acknowledge that our actions on this occasion have caused delay and frustration, therefore I would like to apologise most sincerely both for the time taken and the resulting distress’.

32. VUK told us: ‘Mr E's case has been considered under the AFCS. He is unhappy with the decision under AFCS, and he has lodged an appeal challenge this decision. Mr E also claimed maladministration and he was paid compensation of £150 for the maladministration in administering the incorrect level of the AFCS tariff between November 2020 and December 2021 (level 14 to level 13). When considering Mr E's claim for maladministration, we work in line with the criteria and levels for financial remedy provided by the PHSO’.

Our View

33. We can see that Mr E complained to VUK in relation to it awarding him a low amount of compensation in relation to the injuries he suffered whilst on duty. When Mr E complained, VUK further considered his complaint and raised the award from a lower amount in level 14 to a higher amount in level 13.

34. We can see Mr E strongly disagrees with the level of compensation awarded, and we are aware that he is currently in the process of appealing that reward to the independent tribunal, which is the correct statutory process to follow. Therefore, in relation to this complaint we have not considered if the final level of compensation awarded was correct, as this is the role of the tribunal, which will give its view when Mr E’s appeal is concluded.

35. In our role, we have considered whether there were mistakes in how VUK initially considered Mr E’s application, addressed the issues it identified in relation to its handling of the initial award, the delay and emotional impact this caused, and if VUK has done enough to put right the effect this had on Mr E.

36. It is clear from the evidence available, including VUK’s response letters, that it did not handle Mr E’s initial award in line with its obligations as set out in the Order. As such, we agree that VUK made mistakes in this regard. We have therefore considered the impact this error caused. For the reasons explained above, we have not considered the ongoing impact Mr E describes as a result of its later award, as this is properly being considered by the tribunal, and any errors and resulting injustice regarding that award decision is for that forum to explore.

37. To decide if VUK acted appropriately in recognising its error and in changing Mr E’s initial award, and if it has done enough to put right the effect this had on Mr E we have considered guidance contained in our ‘Principles for Remedy’ and the ‘UK Central Government Complaint Standards’.

38. Our Principles for Remedy say that, where organisations have made mistakes, they should return the person affected to the position they were in before the error was made, or they should compensate that person appropriately.

39. In this case we can see VUK has issued Mr E with an apology and offered him £150.00 in compensation. In its complaint replies, VUK told Mr E this was in line with our ‘Principles for Remedy’ and was the award for a level two injustice as set out in our ‘Guidance on Financial Remedy’.

40. A level two injustice will typically arise when what has gone wrong has had a relatively low impact on the person affected. This will often result in a degree of distress, inconvenience or minor pain. This could also include instances where an injustice was more serious but only took place once or was of short duration. In these cases, we consider that an apology is not suitable by itself. The range of financial redress for a level two injustice is between £100.00 and £450.00.

41. We can see Mr E believes the injustice he has suffered is much higher than level two and he describes that he was deeply affected by his medical discharge and being unable to continue his employment in the Army. He also tells us that he has had to claim the benefit ESA when he was unable to work.

42. We understand that Mr E has experienced a significant physical impact and distress as a result of his injuries. From the information available, we can see from his medical records and discharge papers from the Army that this incident has had a significant impact on his life.

43. We cannot see that this is an impact caused by the VUK’s delay between November 2020 and December 2021 of VUK awarding the correct amount of compensation to Mr E. This is because the impact Mr E describes is a direct result of the injuries he received in February 2020, not because of administrative delays by VUK.

44. We can see the impact of the delayed compensation award is a period of avoidable stress and frustration, as the process has taken longer than it would have had VUK made its eventual final decision straight away.

45. We can see VUK accept that it had all the information needed when it made the initial decision and could have awarded Mr E the higher level eleven months before it did. We can see that this delay was rectified when Mr E’s award was revised after reconsideration.

46. A delay of eleven months causing avoidable frustration and stress would generally be on level two of our severity of injustice scale. As VUK has already awarded Mr E compensation in line with this level of injustice we can see that it has already done enough to put right the impact the delay had on Mr E.

47. Our ‘UK Central Government Complaint Standards’ say organisations should openly identify instances where things have gone wrong, or where services have had an unfair impact, and take responsibility for these. VUK has acknowledged its mistake in giving him the incorrect award level initially and has apologised for this error and offered Mr E a financial remedy for it. It also raised the award to the correct level, which meant Mr E had his compensation award raised from £3,090 to £6,180.00. By taking this action VUK has acted to put things right.

48. As such, we can see VUK acted in line with the ‘UK Central Government Complaint Standards’ and our ‘Principles for Remedy’ in how it dealt with Mr E’s complaint. Therefore, we will take no further action.

49. We understand the injuries Mr E has experienced have greatly impacted on his life, and we understand he has been frustrated by the extended process he has had to go through, so we hope we have clearly explained how we have reached our decision. We have confirmed Mr E is still in the process of appealing to the tribunal and hope this can be concluded as quickly as possible for him.

1. We have carefully considered Mr E’s complaint about VUK. We understand Mr E has brought his complaint to us as he remains unhappy with the delays in VUK processing his Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) award. We understand Mr E was frustrated as he told us that he contacted AFCS several times to advise his award had not been made in line with the applicable legislation.

2. Having reviewed all the evidence available to us, we can see VUK made some mistakes in its handling of Mr E’s application. We can also see that has already done enough to put right the impact of these events on Mr E. It acknowledged the delays in processing his application and awarded Mr E a payment of £150.00 as a financial remedy, along with an apology for the time taken and resulting distress. As VUK has already put right the issues complained about, we will take no further action, and we will explain our decision in more detail below.