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

to 31 March 2006 excluding three ‘waiting days’, but
he was not entitled from 7 June 2006 because he
worked for more than 16 hours a week. Mr G then
asked Jobcentre Plus about payment for the period
between 1 April and 7 June 2006. Jobcentre Plus
told Mr G that he was entitled to income‐based
jobseeker’s allowance from 28 March 2006 because
of ‘a change in savings’, but that he was not entitled
from 7 June 2006 because of the hours he worked.
They paid him a further three days’ allowance, but
said nothing about payment for 1 April to 7 June.
What we investigated
Mr G was dissatisfied with Jobcentre Plus’s
response to his complaint and in June 2007 the
Ombudsman decided to investigate his complaint.
We investigated his complaint that Jobcentre Plus
had mishandled his claims for jobseeker’s allowance
made in February and April 2006, and that they
handled his complaints about that poorly.
Mr G said he had been caused inconvenience and
outrage and, potentially, suffered a financial loss.
He wanted his jobseeker’s allowance claim paid
in full, an explanation for the delays and lack of
responses, and compensation for that.
In the course of our investigation we made
enquiries of Jobcentre Plus, but they could not find
the papers relating to Mr G’s claim.
What our investigation found
The loss of Mr G’s papers was maladministrative
and prevented us from making any assessment
of why the delays in his case occurred. It also
prevented Jobcentre Plus from dealing with his
April 2006 claim for jobseeker’s allowance.
In respect of Mr G’s February 2006 claim, it is not
known if Jobcentre Plus knew in August 2006 when
he had left the marital home, but they ought to
have found out before deciding that the 26‐week
rule applied from the start of his claim. They acted
maladministratively in reaching a decision that did
not take account of all the relevant considerations.
The decision of 3 January 2007 appears consistent
with the legislation about the 26-week rule, but
we did not accept Jobcentre Plus’s subsequent
assertion to us that it was only the loss of Mr G’s
papers that led them to reach that decision. If they
had dealt with Mr G’s claim without unreasonable
delay, they could have assessed his claim correctly
by 6 May 2006. We found their maladministration
delayed the payment of Mr G’s entitlement by
eight months.
Jobcentre Plus failed to deal properly with Mr G’s
second claim. They made enquiries about his wife’s
earnings but because they did not explain clearly
what information they needed, Mr G provided
details of his own income instead. Mr G drew
his mistake to the attention of Jobcentre Plus
but they did not reply for six months. The lack
of clarity and the lateness of their response was
maladministrative. Jobcentre Plus told us that
there was no evidence that they had processed
Mr G’s claim. That failure was maladministrative and
caused injustice to Mr G as his claim for the period
27 April to 6 June 2006 was undecided.
We were unable to say whether Jobcentre Plus
had misled Mr G about the sufficiency of his
contribution payments, or whether there had been
a genuine misunderstanding. That would involve a
level of detail that neither party could be expected
to recall clearly now.
We saw no evidence that Jobcentre Plus answered
Mr G’s complaint about the reasonableness of
52 Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009