NHSBSA Penalty Charge - Pharmacist/Dispenser signing FP10

sheramber

swingaloo said:

It does seem odd that he didn't know he had to pay if his date of birth showing as 2001 is correct. He is 22/23 so presumable has had a  prescription in the last 5 years.

Why would you presume he has a prescription on the last 5 years.

My husband didn’t have a prescription issued until he was 68 years old. 

He hadn’t visited a GP until then

Nornorfox

Flugelhorn said:

swingaloo said:

It does seem odd that he didn't know he had to pay if his date of birth showing as 2001 is correct. He is 22/23 so presumable has had a  prescription in the last 5 years.

OP says it was the first time he had collected one. Lots of young men never go near health services and he could quite possibly never have had a prescription. 

Yes, he's one of those who's been fit and healthy, and if he's ever needed a prescription we've picked it up.  Ignorance isn't necessarily a defence, but the exemption had been determined before he got there and the dispenser didn't talk through the FP10 with him.  I'm not sure that I'd have queried a dispenser's judgement in his situation.

badmemory

The real problem seems to be that pharmacies don't know the rules.  I collected the first prescription my son had as an adult (in his 30s) & they insisted he didn't need to pay.  So feeling a bit silly/told off I went home.  Checked on line & sure enough he should have paid.  Went back the next day & thankfully was able to sort it, there didn't seem too much shock & surprise there.  It makes me wonder how often they land people in this situation.  I never go back to that pharmacy, if their lack of training allows them to make such basic mistakes then what others are they making.

LightFlare

it sounds like a bit of a misunderstanding:

Pharmacist -- do you pay for your prescriptions?

Son (having never had one) -- no  ---- which if its his 1st ever is technically true

The back just gets filled in based on that

It will very much depend on exactly what the pharmacist/assistant asked

user1977

LightFlare said:

it sounds like a bit of a misunderstanding:

Pharmacist -- do you pay for your prescriptions?

Son (having never had one) -- no  ---- which if its his 1st ever is technically true

The back just gets filled in based on that

It will very much depend on exactly what the pharmacist/assistant asked

Maybe. Should still be him signing it though!

Nornorfox

LightFlare said:

it sounds like a bit of a misunderstanding:

Pharmacist -- do you pay for your prescriptions?

Son (having never had one) -- no  ---- which if its his 1st ever is technically true

The back just gets filled in based on that

It will very much depend on exactly what the pharmacist/assistant asked

Yes, I wondered about that scenario too, and he assured me that there was no such interaction.  For me the question is why a specific exemption was ticked by the pharmacist, which was apparently evidenced, and why the FP10 wasn't presented to him for consideration or signing.  He has capacity, so would not have needed to have it signed on his behalf.
I dare say that there's been an unintended error here, but unfortunately NHSBSA take a very one dimensional approach and don't seem able to think outside of their rather limited box.

HillStreetBlues

Nornorfox said:

Yes, I wondered about that scenario too, and he assured me that there was no such interaction.  For me the question is why a specific exemption was ticked by the pharmacist, which was apparently evidenced, and why the FP10 wasn't presented to him for consideration or signing.  He has capacity, so would not have needed to have it signed on his behalf.
I dare say that there's been an unintended error here, but unfortunately NHSBSA take a very one dimensional approach and don't seem able to think outside of their rather limited box.

They do, they base it on ignorance of the law is no excuse.
However unfair I don't see there is a legal challenge to the charge,

Nornorfox

HillStreetBlues said:

Nornorfox said:

Yes, I wondered about that scenario too, and he assured me that there was no such interaction.  For me the question is why a specific exemption was ticked by the pharmacist, which was apparently evidenced, and why the FP10 wasn't presented to him for consideration or signing.  He has capacity, so would not have needed to have it signed on his behalf.
I dare say that there's been an unintended error here, but unfortunately NHSBSA take a very one dimensional approach and don't seem able to think outside of their rather limited box.

They do, they base it on ignorance of the law is no excuse.
However unfair I don't see there is a legal challenge to the charge,

I think the legal challenge will be that he "did not act with any lack of care" and that he "did not act wrongfully".  These appear to be the conditions they'll consider and, by legal definition, his circumstances apply entirely.

Kim_13

The prepayment cert box was crossed in the same biro as the initials, but the on behalf of patient and evidence not seen boxes look like they are greyed and template like (as with the - next to each reason for not paying.) 

Very poor on behalf of the pharmacist, it isn’t even dated and the average 22/23 year old would be more likely to be exempt due to HC2 than a prepayment cert. Low earnings and lack of savings would qualify someone for a HC2. But sadly they’re unlikely to budge on the penalty unless the pharmacist admits that they completed the form with no input from the patient, which might see them sacked so that’s unlikely to happen. 

Young adults should be able to rely on a pharmacist to give them the correct advice/assistance, if they need that. It isn’t that easy if you’ve never dealt with your own prescription before, and depending on what the prescription is for you might be anxious/depressed and not taking it in. My mum came with me for mine and explained what anything on the form meant that I didn’t understand, perhaps worrying about such a fine being incurred. Had she not been there, I would not have known that I should expect to see and complete a form before leaving the pharmacy.

I would nevertheless try his MP. If anyone can get them to move, it will be them. Parliament could look at ways to make the process simpler if they insist on continuing to make only the residents of one quarter of the UK pay while the other nations don’t. Contribution/Means Tested confusion is the usual cause of these penalties. I haven’t needed a prescription for some time thankfully but when I last did, it clearly said that DLA did not qualify for free prescriptions but did not say anything about PIP, despite the rollout having been in place for about 5 years by then. It would safeguard people such as your son if people could only sign on behalf of the patient if they had evidence of the patient’s identity with them, therefore proving their authority to complete a document that NHS BSA insist is the patient’s responsibility if there’s anything amiss. 

In an ideal world the person who made the mistake would reimburse the patient for the penalty element, and the patient take it on the chin if they thought they were on a benefit other than the one they were, etc. In this case there might be more mileage in the fact that on behalf of patient doesn’t appear to have been marked, but I’m guessing any CCTV proving your son never saw the form is long gone.

Are FS your son’s initials? Wondering if the dispenser used their own (which would be more useful as if anything other than the patient’s are used, the on behalf of box should be ticked.)

HillStreetBlues

Nornorfox said:

HillStreetBlues said:

Nornorfox said:

Yes, I wondered about that scenario too, and he assured me that there was no such interaction.  For me the question is why a specific exemption was ticked by the pharmacist, which was apparently evidenced, and why the FP10 wasn't presented to him for consideration or signing.  He has capacity, so would not have needed to have it signed on his behalf.
I dare say that there's been an unintended error here, but unfortunately NHSBSA take a very one dimensional approach and don't seem able to think outside of their rather limited box.

They do, they base it on ignorance of the law is no excuse.
However unfair I don't see there is a legal challenge to the charge,

I think the legal challenge will be that he "did not act with any lack of care" and that he "did not act wrongfully".  These appear to be the conditions they'll consider and, by legal definition, his circumstances apply entirely.

It will be deemed that a person knows if or not they are exempt (ignorance of the law is no excuse)
Knowing that what actions did that person take to stop it being claimed incorrectly? ( the care part).
The wrongfully part for example is if the incorrect box  is ticked and gets a fine, then the appeal will be they didn't act wrongfully as they were entitled to a free prescription.
The bar is set very high as most appeals will blame the pharmacy.