Veterans UK

4. Mr E complains about how VUK handled his asthma claim. He says the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) did not transfer his claim to the War Pension Scheme (WPS) in a timely manner.

5. He also says WPS did not register his escalation from AFCS for nearly two months after his complaint outcome and claimed there had been no mistakes in its handling of his case, even though it acknowledged this in its responses.

6. Because of this, Mr E says he felt uncertain, ignored and dismissed. He says he experienced stress and frustration which impacted his mental health and affected his daily life and ability to focus on work and family.

7. In bringing the complaint to us, Mr E is seeking an apology and an explanation of what went wrong.

8. A WPS is a compensation scheme for veterans who suffered an illness, injury, or death because of their military service before April 6, 2005.

9. The AFCS is a compensation scheme for UK serving and former service personnel injured as a result of their military service. The AFCS compensates for any injury, illness or death which was caused by service on or after 6 April 2005.

10. VUK, a division of the Ministry of Defence (MOD), oversees the WPS and the AFCS. VUK assesses claims by establishing a link between the service personnel’s condition and their military service.

11. Mr E submitted a claim for asthma in September 2024, under the AFCS, believing exposure to chemicals between 2004 and 2012 caused his condition. In early March 2025, VUK issued Mr E its decision. VUK rejected his claim.

12. At the end of March, Mr E made a complaint to VUK about how it had handled his claim and requested a reconsideration. VUK acknowledged his complaint the same day.

13. At the beginning of April, VUK provided a Stage one decision letter. It explained that a caseworker and a medical advisor (MA) had reviewed all the evidence before deciding that his service had not predominantly caused his condition. It therefore did not uphold his complaint.

14. The response also noted that Mr E had included records dating back to November 2004. Since the AFCS cannot consider claims for events prior to April 2005, VUK acknowledged once the AFCS completed its process in March 2025, it should have transferred Mr E’s claim to WPS to assess anything before April 2005. It apologised for the oversight and assured Mr E it would process his claim as quickly as possible.

15. The letter also provided information about how Mr E could escalate his complaint to Stage two if he wished and included details of the Veterans Welfare Service (VWS), which offers free and confidential guidance, information and support to veterans.

16. In mid-April, Mr E submitted a further complaint to VUK via his MP, as he was unhappy that AFCS had not transferred his claim to WPS. He requested immediate registration of his case with WPS, an explanation for the delay, and confirmation it would now progress his case.

17. VUK responded in mid-May and apologised for not transferring his case to WPS after the AFCS had completed its claim process. It explained Mr E’s file was under review and that a caseworker would provide regular updates on his claim every 12 weeks.

18. In mid-June, VUK issued a Stage two response letter, which did not uphold Mr E’s complaint. It explained that although it had registered Mr E’s WPS claim, it had delayed progress because of an increase in claims and implementing a new technology platform intended to improve future service delivery.

19. VUK clarified that as Mr E’s claim involved both the AFCS and the WPS, it could not progress the WPS claim until the AFCS completed his claim. It apologised for the delays, any misinformation that it may have given during the process, and the complications caused by the overlap between the two schemes. It also confirmed that Mr E’s claim was under review and that a caseworker would contact him as soon as further information was available.

20. VUK outlined the service improvements it had put in place and planned to implement to prevent similar issues in the future. It also signposted Mr E to the PHSO and the VWS.

21. As Mr E remained unhappy, he contacted his MP in mid-June. Shortly afterwards, we received his formal complaint.

24. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the event complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. We have done this, and we have found that VUK has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.

25. Mr E complains about the delay in his claim being transferred from the AFCS to the WPS, and about the handling of his case by VUK.

26. Specifically, he says the AFCS did not transfer his claim to the WPS in a timely manner following the completion of its decision in early March 2025. He also says the WPS did not register his claim for nearly two months and that, during this time, VUK provided no updates, told him there was no record of his claim, and claimed there were no mistakes even though it acknowledged these in its responses.

27. Mr E asked VUK to immediately register his claim with the WPS, explain the delay, and confirm that it would progress his case. He also says he made multiple phone calls, was repeatedly told there was no record of his claim and received no updates or confirmation of his claim during this time.

28. Mr E says these delays caused him stress, frustration, and uncertainty, which negatively affected his mental health. He is seeking an explanation of what went wrong and an apology.

29. Our Principles of Remedy and Complaint Standards outline that organisations should acknowledge mistakes and take responsibility for these. They should also apologise, explain what went wrong, and take steps to promptly put things right.

30. From the information we have reviewed, it is clear that AFCS should have transferred Mr E’s claim to the WPS immediately after it completed its process in March 2025. In its April response, VUK acknowledged that this was an error and explained that the claim included medical records from November 2004, which fell outside the scope of the AFCS.

31. Due to an administrative oversight, the claim was not transferred until April 2025, which caused a delay of approximately four weeks. We understand that this delay caused Mr E stress, frustration, and feelings of uncertainty, which negatively impacted his mental health.

32. We can see that in its April 2025 response, VUK acknowledged the error, apologised to Mr E, and assured him the claim would now be processed as quickly as possible. Furthermore, in its subsequent correspondence in May and June, VUK continued to update Mr E, explained what had happened, apologised, and outlined the steps it was taking to address the issue, including assigning a caseworker to his claim and providing regular updates every 12 weeks.

33. In its final response in June, VUK explained that delays in progressing the claim were caused by an increase in demand and the implementation of a new technology system to improve future service delivery. It assured Mr E that his case was being reviewed and would be progressed.

34. VUK also acknowledged the challenges caused by the delay, apologised for the inconvenience and misinformation provided to Mr E, and explained the additional complications caused from the overlap of his claim between the two schemes. It clarified that, as Mr E’s claim involved both the AFCS and the WPS, the WPS claim could not have progressed until the AFCS process was completed.

35. While we recognise Mr E’s frustration with the lack of updates prior to April and the uncertainty this caused, we can see that once VUK identified the issue, it acted appropriately. It took responsibility for its actions, clearly explained what had gone wrong, apologised to Mr E, and resolved the matter. These are the actions Mr E said he wanted to achieve and are consistent with our Complaint Standards and Principles of Good Administration.

36. We recognise that this experience has caused Mr E understandable frustration and stress, which he says affected his mental wellbeing. We acknowledge the challenges he faced and thank him for making the effort to bring this complaint to us. Based on the information available, we are satisfied that VUK’s actions were reasonable and that it has done enough to put right the impact of these events.

37. For these reasons, we will take no further action on Mr E’s complaint.

38. Finally, we would like to reassure Mr E that his complaint has been logged in our system and will contribute to our ongoing monitoring of potential systemic issues involving VUK or similar cases. By systemic issues, we mean patterns or repeated complaints of a similar nature that may indicate wider concerns regarding the organisation or its processes.

39. While we understand that Mr E may be disappointed with the outcome of our assessment, we hope this explanation provides reassurance that his complaint has been thoroughly reviewed and considered in line with our standards. We wish Mr E well for the future.

1. We have carefully considered Mr E’s complaint about Veterans UK (VUK). We understand Mr E experienced frustration and uncertainty because of what happened, and the way in which he says the VUK dealt with his claim. We are sorry to hear about his experience.

2. We have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong. Where VUK made mistakes, we can see it has already done enough to put right the impact of these events on Mr E.

3. We will explain our decision in detail below. We hope this will help Mr E to understand our decision and give some reassurance about what happened.