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

What we investigated
Mr H complained that:
• Jobcentre Plus and the Disability and Carers
Service had misdirected him about saving his
disability living allowance, and failed to provide a
joined‐up service;
• Jobcentre Plus and Debt Management had
decided wrongly that he had been overpaid
income support and that the debt was
recoverable, and had taken too long to reach
that decision; and
• both Jobcentre Plus and the Disability and Carers
Service had discriminated against him on the
grounds of his disability, in that the Motability
Scheme did not offer the support he needed
but they penalised him for using the benefit
intended to support his mobility needs.
Mr H said that he and his family suffered intense
distress and gross inconvenience.
We did not investigate Mr H’s lost entitlement
to income support as that was considered by the
tribunal at the same time as his appeal against the
overpayment decision.
We did not investigate the actions of Motability, as
they are outside the Ombudsman’s remit.
What our investigation found
We found that Jobcentre Plus and the Disability
and Carers Service had misdirected Mr H by,
between them, not giving him all the relevant
information about his entitlements; what he could
and could not expect from them; and about his
own responsibilities. Both bodies failed to tell
him that saving up disability living allowance
might affect his income support entitlement. In
reaching that finding we took particular note of
the customer service goals of both bodies which
aim to give people the information they need
to make decisions about their individual benefit
entitlement. We also took account of the fact
that Disability and Carers Service advisers should
provide information and advice on a wide range
of benefits and services, which will assist them to
understand customers’ needs on a general level.
Had Mr H received complete information, he
would have sought a different solution to his need
for an adapted vehicle, would not have come to
the attention of fraud investigation officers (with
the anxiety that brought) and could have chosen
to spend his disability living allowance differently
(rather than taking a decision in haste to spend his
savings on a van that was not suited to his needs).
We found that Jobcentre Plus and Debt
Management took too long to reach the
overpayment decision: there was no adequate
explanation for their failure to take any action on
this matter between May and December 2006. The
additional uncertainty this created caused Mr and
Mrs H acute anxiety.
We did not find that Mr H had been discriminated
against on the grounds of his disability. The bar to
Mr H building up the capital he needed to obtain
a suitable vehicle derived from the content of
social security legislation, rather than from the
administrative actions of the Disability and Carers
Service and Jobcentre Plus.
The investigation concluded in February 2008 and
we partly upheld Mr H’s complaint.
Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009 71