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

customers in similar circumstances are given the
correct advice’.
On 22 August 2006 Ashton were asked to check
if any child benefit already paid to J needed to
be offset from his incapacity benefit arrears.
Ashton sent an enquiry that day to the Child
Benefit Office. Ashton did not receive their reply
of 4 September and sent duplicate enquiries
on 12 and 19 September. They received a reply
on 20 September. On 26 September Ashton
asked Stratford if income support needed to
be deducted from incapacity benefit arrears.
They chased up their enquiry on 18 October and
received a reply the same day. Ashton then told
Mrs Z that J had been awarded incapacity benefit
from 3 April 2006 (backdated three months from
3 July, and based on a claim date of 29 June, not
19 June). Arrears were paid. Jobcentre Plus
told us that the award was based on a claim date
of 29 June because a telephone call or
electronically signed form of communication
were not acceptable, on their own, as claims for
incapacity benefit.
On 24 October 2006 Mrs Z received a letter saying
that J’s income support would not change and that
he would continue to get £81.95 a week. However,
the letter went on to say that his income support
would decrease to £14.48 a week and decrease from
19 October to £3.45 a week. J would continue to
receive income support ‘for as long as he is sick’.
Mrs Z found the letter confusing. In November
the Chief Executive wrote to the MP apologising
for the delay in paying incapacity benefit arrears,
blaming the need to obtain information from J’s
school and the Child Benefit Office. Jobcentre Plus
later wrote to Mrs Z, awarding her compensation
of £20 for the costs incurred in dealing with
and complaining about J’s incapacity benefit
claim, and a consolatory payment of £100. They
apologised: for the delays; that staff did not know
how to deal with downloaded claim forms; and
for the insensitive way the claim was dealt with.
Jobcentre Plus paid no interest for the delay in
paying the arrears, as the arrears had been paid
within four months of the claim (the ‘indicator
of delay’). The letter also contained the following
standard paragraph:
‘Consolatory payments are made in very
exceptional circumstances where an official
error has had a direct adverse effect on the life
of the customer and/or on the life of another
person. It should be remembered that some
dealings with the Department, whether or
not an error occurs, may take time and that
complying with the law can often be frustrating
or inconvenient and sometimes stressful.’
What we investigated
We received Mrs Z’s complaint in November 2006.
We investigated her complaint that Jobcentre Plus
had given her conflicting and incorrect advice,
did not know how to deal with the claim, were
insensitive and asked inappropriate questions.
We also looked at whether there was confusion
and lack of communication between different
Jobcentre Plus offices, unreasonable delay in
processing the claim and poor complaint handling.
What our investigation found
Jobcentre Plus should not have told Mrs Z to claim
severe disablement allowance, as that benefit was
no longer available. When Mrs Z was told the claim
date for the incapacity benefit was incorrect and
that they would send her a new form, they did not
do so. This was not in line with a focus on dealing
with people helpfully and promptly.
Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009 63