Annual Report 2007-08 - the Parliamentary and Health Service ...

Parliamentary and health service ombudsman annual report 2007-087Case StudyCessation of bank paymentsleft income support claimantshort of foodMr L wrote to Jobcentre Plus on 11 February 2006 asking that themeans by which his income support was paid be changed frompayment direct into a bank account to payment by cheque. Heinstructed his bank to close his account and destroyed his bankcard. Jobcentre Plus did not receive Mr L’s letter until 14 February,by which time it had paid his weekly payment for 13 February intohis bank account. On receipt of Mr L’s letter, Jobcentre Plussuspended his payments, waiting for him to say if he was goingto open a new bank or Post Office account.When the next benefit payment did not arrive as expectedMr L contacted his MP (he said he did that because in the pastJobcentre Plus had ignored some of his letters until the MP hadbecome involved). The MP contacted Jobcentre Plus, which liftedthe suspension and sent Mr L a cheque for his missing payments.Jobcentre Plus apologised to Mr L and said that a consolatorypayment would be considered. The referral for a consolatorypayment included a letter from Mr L to his MP, in which hedescribed the effects of being without income support: he hadno electricity and hence no heat, light or hot water. He was alsounable to afford food. Jobcentre Plus accepted thatmaladministration had interrupted Mr L’s benefit payments,but concluded that the degree of inconvenience caused did notwarrant compensation. It also took account of the fact that Mr Lhad not contacted it about the payment problem, but insteadhad approached his MP. Mr L complained to the Ombudsman thatJobcentre Plus had left him without payment for three weeks, forwhich it had apologised but refused to give compensation.We partly upheld the complaint. It was maladministrative ofJobcentre Plus to stop paying Mr L’s benefit into his bank accountbut not to start paying it by cheque. It was not at fault, however,for making the 13 February payment direct into Mr L’s bankaccount, as it had not yet received his request to change thepayment method. It was reasonable, given Mr L’s history ofinteraction with Jobcentre Plus, for him to have initially sought hisMP’s help. For its part, Jobcentre Plus paid insufficient attentionto the facts of Mr L’s deprivation when considering theconsolatory payment.Jobcentre Plus reconsidered its decision and awarded Mr L £400for inconvenience and distress. It also agreed to apologise to himfor not making a payment in the first place. Jobcentre Plus alsoundertook to reply promptly to any future correspondence fromMr L in line with its service standards.Department for Work andPensionsWe reported on 98 cases relating to 118complaints against DWP and its agencies,including 7 relating to the handling ofcomplaints by DWP’s Independent CaseExaminer (ICE). We welcomed theextension of ICE in 2007 to include allof DWP’s customer-facing agencies,a change which the Ombudsman hasbeen calling for since 2003.As in previous years, two themes runningthrough our DWP casework in 2007-08were mistakes or shortcomings in theadministration and allocation of benefits,and failings in the handling of resultantcomplaints. In the case of Mr L, JobcentrePlus changed the method of benefitpayment at Mr L’s request, but then lefthim without benefits for three weeks,leading to significant hardship. Whenhe complained, it refused to make aconsolatory payment.21