Is there a definitive guide to the process? As usual, confusion reigns due to TCO giving contradictory advice and not doing what their guidance says. My interpretation of their new COP26 (April 2007) is as follows. Please let me know if this is wrong/misguided:

1. If unhappy with decision to recover OP - DISPUTE letter or TC846.
(will suspend from receipt to decision)

2. If unhappy with decision (to continue to recover) - EITHER:
(this seems to be the "COMPLAINTS" stage)

2A. If have NEW information, write to TCO Preston.
(will suspend)

2B. If NO NEW information, write to Adjudicator/Ombudsman
(not mention of suspending)

This seems different to what other people - including the Adjudicator - says - who assumes that 2A should happen whatever.

And, how does it relate to their other guidance "Complaints and putting things right"* which appears to have replaced the COP1. It states a COMPLAINT against a first decision goes to a "senior officer" (who I have been told by TCO replaces the "Director"). If unhappy, you go to the Adjudicator. No mention here of whther you have NEW information or not.

* here I have to stifle an unprofessional howl of derision!

Go on Clive, let it out. You know you want to. It'll make you feel better!

What a bloody rigmarole! It would be easier to find your way round Hampton Court maze. It never ceases to amaze me: a beaurocrat's ability to complicate what could be quite simple. That is, a right of appeal against all overpayment decisions. No recovery in any case until appeal finally disposed of.

For complaints regarding poor administration then a letter outlining relevant issues, or a phonecall alternative, to the local office. If disatisfied with respone then a facilty to simply request the complaint be passed to a central adjudication office. Suspend any recovery until complaint finally disposed of.

All other avenues, i.e. complaint to ombudsman, remain as separate rights of redress.

The process is a bit longer than that:

1.TC846 to o/p dispute team. If unhappy with the response, then

2. letter of complaint to TCO (I always ignore the rubbish about "if u have new information", cos they never respond to the info presented anyway). This letter should be answered by Customer Support Unit, but whoever answers it, if unhappy with response, then

3. letter of complaint to director's team at TCO address, making clear this is a second tier complaint. This letter should be answered on behalf of the director, but again whoever answers it, if unhappy with response, then

4. letter to adjudicator. U will have to make clear in this letter that all previous stages have been followed, enclose copies of correspondence to prove that u wrote to the director's team, even if the response came back from somewhere else, because the adjudicator will only deal with case if complaint has already been made to director's team. If unhappy with response, then

5. get a parliamentary ombudsman referral form from local MP, fill it in and ask local MP to forward it to Ombudsman.

Yes, indeed TCO do in fact get three, yes three opportunities to look at the same decision. And even better than that, as John Andrews has pointed out in previous threads there is a new system being piloted at the minute where the AO is giving TCO a chance to take a FOURTH look at their decision due to the volume of complaints coming to the AO!!!! U gotta love it!

And they make up the rules themselves, and the Adjudicator seems to just follow their rules - whether they are "reasonable" or not.

It's a great pity - in the early days of TCs I had success with the Adjudicator looking truly independently at what TCO had done, but I'm not sure it is always happening now.