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

helpfully, dealing with people promptly within
reasonable timescales and telling people if things
take longer than they can reasonably expect. A
failure to meet one or more Principles does not
necessarily indicate maladministration. However
in this case, taken together, the failure to process
Mrs H’s claim promptly, the lack of an appropriate
system for customers to contact Jobcentre Plus
and the failures to deal appropriately with
Mrs H’s enquiries are so significant as to be
maladministration.
Mrs H’s claim required input from a Specialist
Decision Maker, but it was not otherwise
complicated and should have been dealt with
promptly. Once work started on her claim, it
was approved in less than two weeks. Mrs H’s
claim should have been able to be processed
within or close to the average actual clearance
time for jobseeker’s allowance at the time of her
claim (15 to 19 days). In their first special payment
decision, Jobcentre Plus applied the guidelines on
financial redress as a rigid set of rules, rather than
consider Mrs H’s case on its merits. Their approach
on review was more appropriate, but they took no
account of the first two weeks’ delay.
One of the Principles for Remedy is ‘Acting fairly
and proportionately’. Public bodies’ complaints
procedures should offer a fair and appropriate
remedy when a complaint is valid. In this case,
Jobcentre Plus should have calculated interest
based on the average actual clearance time of
around 15 to 19 days, unless there was a reason
to do otherwise. Their failure to do so, even at
review, is further maladministration. ‘Getting
it right’, another of the Principles for Remedy,
includes quickly acknowledging and putting
right cases of maladministration that have led to
injustice. Jobcentre Plus should have considered
a compensation payment for Mrs H as soon as
they paid her arrears, and certainly once she
had complained about the delay. Instead, Mrs H
had to request compensation, chase this up and
resubmit her evidence. She waited nine months
for a decision, and the review took a further four
months. This too was maladministration.
As for the injustice to Mrs H, we could not be
certain that she would have been able to apply for
her licence earlier (and started work earlier) had
Jobcentre Plus paid her benefit sooner. Although
she would have received a lump sum sooner, it
would have been for a lesser amount (being for
fewer weeks’ arrears). In fact, Mrs H needed the
arrears and an additional benefit payment before
she could apply for her licence. As she would have
had about the same expenses as she actually did
have, we did not see that she could have afforded
the licence any earlier than she did. Nor were
we persuaded that the delay prevented Mrs H
borrowing money to pay for her licence. However,
she did suffer outrage, stress and inconvenience,
and the worry of the local authority’s possession
Notice.
We fully upheld Mrs H’s complaint and concluded
our investigation in March 2008.
Outcome
To fully remedy the injustice to Mrs H, we
recommended that Jobcentre Plus:
• pay her compensation of £300; and
• consider if interest was due on the benefit
arrears, on the basis that the claim could and
should have been dealt with within 15 to
19 days.
Jobcentre Plus agreed to our recommendations.
Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009 41