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

Jobcentre Plus’s special payment submission said
Mrs H’s jobseeker’s allowance claim had been
delayed because of a backlog at the Specialist
Decision Makers Team, and that she had been
treated badly when she contacted them.
Mrs H’s request for compensation was refused.
The decision letter of 8 May 2007 said that
compensation for delay in paying benefit was
payable only if four conditions were satisfied, one
of them being that ‘the mistake meant that you
were not paid within the maximum period for
dealing with your claim. In the case of Jobseekers
Allowance … the maximum period for dealing with
a claim is three months’. The letter explained that
no compensation would be paid to Mrs H because
her benefit had been paid within three months.
Mrs H wrote back, saying that her compensation
request had also related to the delay in obtaining
a licence and therefore a job as a chauffeur, the
impact on her health, the effect on her housing
benefit and the threat of repossession, and the
expenses she had incurred. She also mentioned the
delay in considering her request.
Jobcentre Plus reviewed their compensation
decision in September 2007. They accepted that
Mrs H’s claim could have been paid by 3 July 2006;
that they had not kept her informed of progress;
that she had experienced telephony difficulties;
and that they had delayed considering her
compensation request. They proposed a payment
of £100 for inconvenience and £20 for costs. Also,
interest on the benefit arrears was calculated
from the date that Jobcentre Plus accepted they
should have been paid to the actual date of
payment, but in line with their normal practice they
made no payment as the sum was less than £10.
Jobcentre Plus invited Mrs H to provide objective
evidence that her health issues had resulted from
their maladministration, and said they would
consider a further award.
What we investigated
We investigated Mrs H’s complaint that
Jobcentre Plus had:
• delayed processing her jobseeker’s allowance
claim and had not kept her informed of progress
or responded to her enquiries; and
• delayed considering her compensation request,
and made an unreasonable decision.
Mrs H complained that the delays meant that she
could not afford the medical examination and
the licence, which delayed her starting work. She
said the delay had caused stress and exacerbated
existing medical conditions, and meant she
was unable to claim housing benefit which led
to difficulty paying her rent, and the threat of
repossession. She said she also suffered expenses in
chasing the progress of her claim.
What our investigation found
Mrs H’s claim was not progressed in the two weeks
before it was passed to the Specialist Decision
Makers Team. Although she repeatedly chased
progress, no attention was paid to the claim until
nearly six weeks later. Mrs H had to spend hours
telephoning Jobcentre Plus to chase up her claim
and compensation request. Given that she was
told to make her enquiries by telephone, it was
unacceptable that Jobcentre Plus did not have a
telephone system in place to enable them to deal
with enquiries. On four occasions Jobcentre Plus
told Mrs H to ring other offices, which then could
not help her. They should also have called Mrs H
back as they promised her.
One of the Principles of Good Administration is
‘Being customer focused’. This includes behaving
40 Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009