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

claim did not link with the previous one. But
after consulting the Decision Makers Guide and
obtaining clarification during the interview, he
realised he should have disregarded the ‘first day of
the second period’, which was 14 September 2006.
He acknowledged he had been unaware of that
method of calculation, and said he would have
suggested that Mrs U amend her claim if he had
realised that her new claim linked to her previous
one.) Jobcentre Plus disallowed Mrs U’s claim
because her entitlement was based on National
Insurance contributions that had run out. Her
appeal about this decision was unsuccessful.
In March 2007 Mrs U asked Jobcentre Plus for
compensation for having been misdirected. They
refused a payment, on the grounds that they
probably had not misdirected her. In June Mrs U
complained to the Ombudsman. We referred
the matter to Jobcentre Plus’s Chief Executive.
A Jobcentre Plus Director responded saying
that he found no evidence that Mrs U had been
misdirected in July 2006. He made no reference to
the allegation of misdirection in September 2006,
despite Officer B’s submission to the investigation
confirming that he discussed ‘linking’ with Mrs U
and ‘at her request checked to see if it was
more than 12 weeks since her previous … claim’.
Officer A told us he was not asked to respond to
Mrs U’s complaint.
What we investigated
We investigated whether Jobcentre Plus had
misdirected Mrs U about when she could claim
contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance, and how
they had handled her complaint about that. As
part of our investigation we interviewed Mrs U, and
Officers A and B.
What our investigation found
We found that Officer A was unaware of the
correct way to calculate the linking period and
so probably had confirmed the wrong date to
Mrs U. Officer B demonstrated at interview how
he (incorrectly) calculated what he thought to be
the correct date for her claim, and confirmed that,
based on this calculation, he had wrongly told
Mrs U that her claim would not link to her previous
claim. Although this advice was given in good faith,
these errors amount to maladministration.
One of the Principles of Good Administration
is ‘Putting things right’. Although Mrs U
identified to whom she had spoken and when,
Jobcentre Plus did not properly investigate her
claims. Their compensation decision did not refer
to Officer B’s misdirection, and he was not asked
about Mrs U’s complaint before that decision was
made. Furthermore, Jobcentre Plus considered
Officer A’s account of events, which was provided
in relation to Mrs U’s July 2006 complaint, which
was not about misdirection. The poor quality of
Jobcentre Plus’s investigation led them to conclude
there was no evidence of misdirection. Given that
both Officers promptly admitted the probability
of misdirection when we put Mrs U’s allegations
to them, Jobcentre Plus’s failure to thoroughly
investigate her complaint was maladministration.
If Mrs U had not been misdirected, she would have
claimed from 15 September 2006, and received
contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance for
182 days. Instead, she submitted her claim from
the wrong date and it was refused. Jobcentre Plus’s
failure to properly address Mrs U’s complaint meant
that it took 18 months to resolve, resulting in
inconvenience and further frustration for her.
We upheld Mrs U’s complaint and concluded our
investigation in September 2008.
24 Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009