First impressions

As the Barclays complaint had failed to be resolved via the Barclays' Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure I was faced with a decision, give up and admit Barclays had beaten us or look elsewhere for an answer. A financial journalist, Mr S advised me to submit a formal complaint through the Pensions Ombudsman.
This appeared easier than I first feared. They had a simple form available that was completed and sent off. On this form there was a section headed, "Tell us what went wrong and who you think is at fault."
It took me a while to distill two years of maladministration events into a few paragraphs, all the while hearing Paul's voice urging me to be more succinct. I was pretty pleased with the resulting text and my final sentence read;
"For a year now I have tried my best to navigate the internal dispute resolution process. Barclays have admitted their administration was at fault but will not provide satisfactory compensation. After Stage 1 I was offered £500. After Stage 2 the offer was increased to £3,000."
Was that clear enough?
Are any of you reading this post wondering why I didn't complain directly to Barclays? Questioning why I didn't avail myself of the internal dispute resolution process?
I doubt it.
I waited five days for an acknowledgement that the Ombudsman had received my missive. Patience is a virtue I have had to develop over recent time, dealing with Barclays has forced me to just accept that if an answer can be delayed it will be. I could accept the wait, assuming that as a government agency they were probably under pressure, probably operating with tight budgets, etc. What I found hard to accept was the response I received.
The Pension Ombudsman's response was to send me a email and attachments advising that they could not look at my problem until after Barclays had been given the opportunity to deal with it. Clearly the Ombudsman was operating under the same system as Barclays, send a response to the client within the required number of days to meet your turn-around targets, and quality control will be satisfied. This was my first impression of the Ombudsman. Not good.
I replied within a few hours, this time sending them copies of Barclay's Stage 1 and Stage 2 decision letters supporting the statement I had made on the form.
Two days later I received a reply asking me for copies of the letter of probate (if applied for), my husband's will, death certificate, our marriage certificate and all correspondence with HMRC. I cannot comprehend why they need this and no explanation was offered. Barclays went through the process of checking that I was my husband's legal wife and beneficiary, and that his death was genuine. At no time did Barclays raise any issue with the legality of my claim.
However, I know that to argue with a government agency is not a good use of my time and so I sent everything off within the hour, accompanied by a sentence explaining that as my husband had no property at the time of his death the advice given to me was that a probate was unnecessary. I quickly received a reassuring email confirming that a letter of probate was not necessary, everything was in order and that the Pensions Ombudsman's office did not currently have a heavy case load and so my case would be assigned and investigated quickly.
I could hardly believe my good fortune, they didn't have many complaints, something might happen quickly!
My elation was short lived.
Two days later I received an email from the case worker assigned to deal with my complaint. This person informed me that they were not prepared to do anything until the probate letter was supplied.
How is an old widow supposed to feel as she travels through this quagmire of mis-information and confusion? I admit to an emotional meltdown, whether my tears were frustration, exhaustion, or just grief I'm not sure. I sent an acerbic email to both the case worker asking for the probate letter and the manager who had assured me I didn't need it.
Clearly the Pensions Ombudsman doesn't read through correspondence and case notes before writing replies to clients, therefore I have little anticipation that they will find any fault with Barclays.
Not reading what the client writes is just business as usual, certainly not a good first impression, or second impression. 
In the early hours of Friday the intruder took my technology and so I didn't know if the acerbic comment provoked a considered reply, or whether there was to be yet another irrelevant communication. After the scene of crimes officer had left I braced myself and phoned the Pensions Ombudsman manager, just to advise that I did not have access to my email. My call went through to his voicemail, and I heard myself rambling on until I finally finished, put the phone down and wept. How many suicides are the result of just one too many institutional failures tipping people into the abyss of depression?
I'd been awake since 1.30am, spent hours dealing with banks and institutions to try and resurrect my life, and there was no chance to rest because I needed to deal with the damaged window. The intruder had not broken the glass, he had levered the window open and in doing so buckled the metal hinges beyond repair. I'd removed the hinges and had the window in my hand when a plumber arrived at 4pm to quote for work to my bathroom. I must have looked a real fright but no longer care. He was useful to help support the window and tear off bits of duct tape that held it secure-ish. After he'd gone I put four long screws in and decided that it would do.
It was when I came back into the house that I heard the signal that I had missed a phone call. It was the Pensions Ombudsman manager returning my call. He assured me I did not need to apply for probate and that the office would correspond by post. This was a good response, but was it too little, too late? Can this man's apparent concern adjust my perception that the Pensions Ombudsman's office is operating in a somewhat haphazard manner, similar to Barclays.
As Paul would say in such a situation, "We'll see."