Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP - the ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Mr W’s complaint about Jobcentre Plus In Mr W’s case, Jobcentre Plus failed to provide a significant piece of information when he enquired about his benefit entitlement, giving him the impression that he would receive more help with his mortgage interest payments than he was actually entitled to receive. Background to the complaint Following Mr W’s divorce, he gained custody of his two children. In June 2005 he went to his local Jobcentre Plus office to ask which benefits he would be entitled to if he gave up work to look after his children. He also asked what help he would receive with his mortgage. He said he was told that he would be entitled to income support and child tax credit, and that his mortgage interest would be paid after a qualifying period of 39 weeks. Mr W was surprised that his interest payments would be paid in full, and he returned on two further occasions to check that what he had been told was correct. He said he was given exactly the same information, which he then took to be correct. On the basis of the advice he was given, Mr W gave up work and claimed income support from August. Approximately four weeks before Mr W expected his first mortgage interest payment, he telephoned Jobcentre Plus. During this conversation, Jobcentre Plus told Mr W that there is a statutory limit (the cap) of £100,000 on the amount of eligible loans on which interest payments are met by income support. The cap meant that not all of Mr W’s mortgage interest payments were covered each month (the monthly shortfall was £269). Mr W subsequently contacted his mortgage lender to try to resolve the situation. He described this as being a ‘nightmare’; his doctor prescribed medication for stress after his mortgage lender told him that his house might be repossessed if he did not meet his payments in full. Mr W subsequently made an arrangement with the mortgage lender, whereby they met the shortfall and added it to his mortgage balance. (This increased Mr W’s mortgage by approximately £10,000 and increased his interest liability.) What we investigated We received Mr W’s complaint in March 2007 and investigated whether Jobcentre Plus had misadvised him that his mortgage interest payments would be paid in full. Mr W said that he had suffered significant financial loss and emotional distress as a result of Jobcentre Plus’s actions. In the course of our investigation we interviewed Mr W. What our investigation found Jobcentre Plus did not dispute Mr W’s contention that he was not told about the cap. In their view, the rules surrounding the cap made it too complicated to fall within the remit of general advice. According to Jobcentre Plus, the correct general advice to give potential claimants of income support who had a mortgage, such as Mr W, would be to merely inform them that they may receive assistance with housing costs after 39 weeks. We considered that that advice gave potential claimants only some of the information they need to know: it did not include any information about the rate of interest payable or, crucially, that there is a limit on the assistance available. We also noted DWP’s internal guidance Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009 11
which stated that officials should ensure they give customers full and accurate information. We concluded that Mr W should have been given full and comprehensive information. This should have included the fact that there was likely to be a limit on the financial assistance available. This was a key piece of information which Mr W needed to know. We found that Jobcentre Plus’s failure to give him full and comprehensive information amounted to maladministration. We did not find, however, on the balance of probabilities that Jobcentre Plus’s maladministration led to the financial injustice which Mr W claimed. He was, though, caused significant distress, anxiety and inconvenience and deprived of the opportunity to make a properly informed decision about how to best plan his financial situation. Outcome As result of our investigation, Jobcentre Plus agreed to: • apologise to Mr W for the inconvenience, distress and anxiety they had caused him; and • pay him compensation of £500. Jobcentre Plus said they would feature Mr W’s complaint in their internal staff bulletin as a reminder to staff that they should ensure that customers are made aware of the upper capital limit when dealing with queries from customers about housing costs. We upheld Mr W’s complaint and concluded our investigation in February 2008. 12 Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009
Page 1 and 2: Putting things right: complaints an
Page 3 and 4: © Crown Copyright 2009 The text in
Page 5 and 6: Falling between the gaps ..........
Page 7 and 8: communications failings between the
Page 9 and 10: 8 Putting things right: complaints
Page 11: 10 Putting things right: complaints
Page 15 and 16: In January 2006 Mr S’s MP wrote t
Page 17 and 18: Miss G’s complaint about The Pens
Page 19 and 20: What we investigated We investigate
Page 21 and 22: Mr K’s complaint about Jobcentre
Page 23 and 24: and accountable’) the Ombudsman e
Page 25 and 26: claim did not link with the previou
Page 27 and 28: Mr Q’s complaint about Jobcentre
Page 29 and 30: In investigating Mr Q’s complaint
Page 35 and 36: the matter would be dealt with inte
Page 37 and 38: Mr C’s complaint about The Pensio
Page 39 and 40: Outcome As a result of our recommen
Page 41 and 42: Jobcentre Plus’s special payment
Page 47 and 48: On 8 November the solicitors contac
Page 49 and 50: Mr J’s complaint about the Child
Page 51 and 52: as had his privacy, family and work
Page 53 and 54: to 31 March 2006 excluding three
Page 59 and 60: treated inequitably as a result of
Page 61 and 62: Mr E’s complaint about Jobcentre
Page 63 and 64:
Mrs Z’s complaint about Jobcentre
Page 65 and 66:
We expect public bodies to deal wit
Page 67 and 68:
Mr L’s complaint about Jobcentre
Page 69 and 70:
Mr L also had difficulty communicat
Page 71 and 72:
savings had affected his income sup
Page 73 and 74:
Outcome As a result of our recommen
Page 75 and 76:
In April 2006 Jobcentre Plus wrongl
Page 77 and 78:
76 Putting things right: complaints
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
On 10 May 2007 the Agency sent a le
Page 83 and 84:
Mrs P’s complaint about The Pensi
Page 85 and 86:
Because Mexborough did not complete
Page 87 and 88:
Mr V’s complaint about The Pensio
Page 89 and 90:
an adequate service. In particular,
Page 91 and 92:
e awarded because Officer L’s act
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97:
PHSO-0033 Printed in the UK by The
show all

Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP - the ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?