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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Outcome As a result of our recommendations, The Pension Service agreed to: • apologise to Miss G for sending her inaccurate pension forecasts, and for their poor complaint handling; • pay her £5,000 to recognise the loss of opportunity to plan properly for her future and for the inconvenience and stress caused by their poor complaint handling; and • establish who else might have been affected by the same error and, as far as is possible, put that right by: • writing to these people warning them about the inaccuracy of past forecasts; • providing them with updated and correct forecasts; and • considering an appropriate remedy for anyone who has suffered in a similar way to Miss G. Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009 19
Mr K’s complaint about Jobcentre Plus Jobcentre Plus gave Mr K misleading advice about how the money he had received on redundancy would be treated for benefit purposes, causing him not to claim the benefit to which he was entitled. The failure to get things right at the outset was exacerbated by Jobcentre Plus’s subsequent poor handling of Mr K’s complaint, which meant they then delayed putting right their mistake. Background to the complaint Mr K was made redundant in July 2002, and received a redundancy payment of about £16,000 and three months’ salary in lieu of notice. On 16 July Mr K attended an interview at his local job centre to claim income‐based jobseeker’s allowance. After he had signed a jobseeker’s agreement, he said he would put the redundancy money into an offset account (that is, a flexible current account). According to Mr K, the officer sought advice about the implications of that. She then advised him that the deposit against his mortgage counted as savings and, because his capital would be above a threshold, he would not be entitled to income‐based jobseeker’s allowance, and did not need to sign on as he would automatically receive National Insurance credits. Mr K decided not to claim contribution‐based jobseeker’s allowance instead because it was taxable and normally paid for only six months. He also expected to start a new job soon. In March 2004 Mr K’s capital fell below the threshold, and he contacted Jobcentre Plus about claiming income‐based jobseeker’s allowance. He said an adviser told him that he had been given wrong advice in 2002, as money in an offset account did not count as savings. On 5 March 2004 Mr K claimed income‐based jobseeker’s allowance. While Jobcentre Plus were considering his claim, they obtained technical advice that Mr K had no capital that could be taken into consideration. Mr K attended a new claim appointment on 27 March and asked for his claim to be backdated for the period 15 July 2002 to 4 March 2004 on the basis that he had been misadvised in July 2002. Jobcentre Plus told Mr K that jobseeker’s allowance could only be backdated three months; he would need to request a compensation payment instead. On 24 May 2004 Mr K complained to Jobcentre Plus and asked for compensation for the jobseeker’s allowance, help with mortgage costs, and the National Insurance credits he had lost. In August the job centre asked Mr K for information about his redundancy, and sent his compensation claim to the special payments team. In January 2005 the special payments team asked the job centre why they thought they had given Mr K incorrect information. The job centre manager said it was thought likely that Mr K had been misadvised because staff had had no knowledge of the rules about offset accounts. The special payments team then asked the job centre if they had similarly misdirected other customers. The job centre replied saying that there were no records of that happening. Jobcentre Plus refused Mr K’s request for compensation as they did not accept that an error had been made. After Mr K asked for the decision to be reconsidered, the special payments officer asked for further information from the job centre and for further technical advice. On 16 November 2005 the special payments officer asked the job centre whether, given the jobseeker’s agreement, Mr K had made a valid claim. On 22 November the job centre said Mr K made a valid claim but had chosen not to pursue it. The same day the special payments officer said a formal decision was needed on 20 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 13 and 14: which stated that officials should
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: What we investigated We investigate
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?