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

y the children’s mother). A second scan then
checked those cross‐referenced accounts for notes
indicating that the person concerned had died (by
searching for a special note or the words ‘died’,
‘death’ or ‘deceased’. A third scan again looked
for claims with sole male payees, and this time
checked those claims for the same indications
that a person had died. The results were checked
and then letters inviting the men to claim were
sent out. The Child Benefit Office told us that
they identified at an early stage the risk that some
bereaved fathers might be missed, and said that
Jobcentre Plus had accepted that risk. They could
not provide any further details as the relevant
papers had been destroyed.
Mr Q’s claim for widowed parent’s allowance
Mr Q’s wife died in February 1998. He then took
responsibility for bringing up their son, for whom
Mrs Q had claimed child benefit. He was given
leaflets from various sources (including the Child
Benefit Office), but he could see that he was not
entitled to widowed mother’s allowance and so
did not make a claim. Subsequently, Mr Q was not
sent the letter about widowed parent’s allowance.
Although his child benefit computer record should
have been cross-referenced to Mrs Q’s account (and
so picked up by the scan), it later transpired that
the scan had not recognised his record as being
that of a widower because the cross-reference had
been noted in a wrong section of his record.
In November 2005 Mr Q saw a television
programme which mentioned the possibility of
widowers claiming widowed parent’s allowance.
He claimed the same day and was awarded the
allowance backdated for three months. Mr Q
appealed against the backdating decision, partly on
the grounds that he had not been made aware of
the fact that widowers could claim the allowance.
Jobcentre Plus reconsidered, but did not change,
their decision. However, the decision-maker
asked if it would be appropriate to make Mr Q an
ex gratia payment on the grounds that he had not
been invited to claim when the law changed. Mr Q’s
subsequent appeal was disallowed in March 2006.
Jobcentre Plus’s consideration of an ex gratia
payment for Mr Q
In response to enquiries from Jobcentre Plus,
the Child Benefit Office said that they could not
confirm if they had sent Mr Q a widowed parent’s
allowance claim form because no clerical records of
the scan results or the letters sent had been kept.
They also said that none of the criteria which might
have identified him as a widower was shown on
Mr Q’s child benefit account and so he would not
have been identified by the scan. In October 2006
Jobcentre Plus refused Mr Q an ex gratia payment,
saying that it was the Child Benefit Office’s view
that ‘the onus remained with the individual
customer to make a claim to benefit; the basis
being that the change in provision was widely
advertised and information about [sic] was freely
available to the general public. I surmise therefore
that there was no mandatory obligation to invite
and consequently no departmental error. It
follows that a special payment cannot be made’.
What we investigated
Mr Q complained to the Ombudsman, in
November 2006, that the Child Benefit Office’s
scan had failed to identify him as eligible to
claim widowed parent’s allowance, and that
Jobcentre Plus had not fully considered all the
circumstances of his case when deciding his
request for an ex gratia payment. He said he had
missed out on about £27,000.
Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009 27