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

What our investigation found
Judged by the Principles of Good Administration,
DWP repeatedly failed to ‘get it right’; were not
‘open and accountable’; and completely failed to
offer a co‐ordinated service between the different
parts of DWP, thus lacking ‘customer focus’.
Jobcentre Plus failed to give Miss F proper notice
of their decision of 30 December 2004, and should
have given her proper notice in April 2005 of the
amount and period of the overpayment, and of her
right of appeal. Jobcentre Plus gave inconsistent
information to Miss F and her local authority.
They unfairly refused to accept her appeal; that
was poor service and obstructed Miss F’s right
to a fair hearing within a reasonable period of
time. Jobcentre Plus gave wrong information to
the Tribunals Service, delaying Miss F’s appeal and
further obstructing her right to a timely hearing.
They failed to give Debt Management a revised
decision within five working days of receiving the
tribunal’s decision, and wrongly suggested that
they write off the overpayment, not recognising
that the tribunal’s decision meant there was
no overpayment. The revised decision was not
produced until some 11 months after the tribunal’s
decision. That was maladministration.
Debt Management failed to update their records
when notified of the overpayment, did not take
account of the tribunal’s decision and chased Miss F
for a non-existent overpayment. They should
also have queried Jobcentre Plus’s view that there
was no need for a revised decision. These actions
amount to maladministration.
Jobcentre Plus should have referred the mortgage
interest overpayment to their housing cost
department, while Debt Management did not
spot that the matter was not for them to deal
with. Finally, although Debt Management correctly
approached the lender for repayment, they asked
Miss F to repay the money too, and chased her for
recovery after the lender had repaid the money.
This too was maladministration.
As a result of all that, Miss F was caused worry,
inconvenience and aggravation. She had to make
unnecessary appeals, and it took longer to resolve
her benefit entitlement than it needed to have
done. She was also pursued for an overpayment
she did not owe. Miss F suffered financial injustice:
if Jobcentre Plus had properly explained their
decision of December 2004, she would have known
they were not disputing her entitlement after
20 December 2004, giving her no reason to
withdraw her claim.
We concluded our investigation in September 2008
and upheld Miss F’s complaint.
Outcome
In line with the Principles for Remedy we
recommended that:
• Jobcentre Plus make Miss F a payment equivalent
to any income support and council tax benefit
she lost after withdrawing her claim, together
with interest (they later paid her £467.37 plus
interest of £57.80);
• Jobcentre Plus and Debt Management pay her
compensation of £350 and £150 respectively,
to recognise the inconvenience, worry and
frustration caused; and
• senior officers from both Jobcentre Plus and
Debt Management write to Miss F to apologise
for the maladministration of their respective
organisations.
Our recommendations were accepted.
Putting things right: complaints and learning from DWP | March 2009 75