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

taking into account the value of the marital home.
The legislation required them to do so, but they
should have explained that more clearly to him.
Had they done so, their failure to deal properly
with his claim in the first place might have come
to light sooner. Jobcentre Plus’s failure to copy
to Mr G their response to his MP showed a lack
of customer focus, and they did not consider
his complaint properly. They acknowledged they
were responsible for delays, but to simply observe
that they had not processed Mr G’s second claim,
without considering the implications of that for
him, was extremely poor. Jobcentre Plus’s poor
complaint handling caused inconvenience and led
to an investigation by this Office which should not
have been necessary.
In summary, Jobcentre Plus caused Mr G
considerable inconvenience over a very long time
through their maladministration. They did not have
the information they needed to determine his
April 2006 claim and did not operate an effective
complaints procedure.
Outcome
To remedy the injustice to Mr G, Jobcentre Plus
agreed to:
• pay him £400 to compensate him for the
inconvenience and trouble he was put to;
• consider paying him interest on the arrears paid
on his first claim;
• offer to interview him to reconstruct his second
claim, and pay him any arrears with interest;
• compensate him for any reasonable but
unnecessary expenses incurred as a result
of their delays in sorting out his benefit
entitlement; and
• check and confirm to him that they have
credited him with all the contributions he was
entitled to between 6 February and 7 June 2006.
We upheld Mr G’s complaint and concluded our
investigation in March 2008.
Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009 53