Complaint about Jobcentre Plus of the Department for Work and Pensions
Jump to
Mishandling of income support payments and inadequate consideration given to appropriate remedy
Background to the complaint
Mr K’s income support payments were paid directly into his bank account. On 11 February 2006 he wrote to ask Jobcentre Plus to pay him by cheque instead. He instructed his bank to close his account and destroyed his bank card. Jobcentre Plus did not receive Mr K’s letter until 14 February, by which time they had already paid his income support payment for 13 February into his bank account, which he could not then access. On receipt of Mr K’s letter, Jobcentre Plus suspended his payments, awaiting contact from him to find out if he was going to open a new bank or post office account. On 13 February Mr K wrote to his MP asking what was happening with his payments. He was referred to his local councillor as the reason for changing the payment method related to his council tax. Mr K wrote again to the MP. She contacted Jobcentre Plus which immediately lifted the suspension and hand-delivered a cheque to Mr K for his income support arrears.
Jobcentre Plus apologised to Mr K for what had happened and said that compensation would be considered. The compensation referral included a letter from Mr K to his MP, in which he described the effects of being without income support: no electricity and hence no heat (in sub-zero temperatures), light or hot water; and he could not afford food. He also pointed to his history of heart attacks. Jobcentre Plus decided not to award Mr K compensation; they accepted that their maladministration had interrupted his benefit payments, but felt that the level of inconvenience did not merit compensation. Jobcentre Plus’s file was noted: ‘This decision takes into account the observation that the matter could have been resolved at the first point of contact from the customer following the benefit interruption. Benefit entitlement would have been due on 20/02/06. I would have considered it reasonable for the customer to contact the department directly to establish [sic] position with his benefit entitlement as opposed to writing directly to his MP over a week later’. (At interview, Mr K explained to us that he had approached his MP rather than Jobcentre Plus, because on previous occasions Jobcentre Plus had ignored his letters until the MP had intervened on his behalf.)
What we investigated
Mr K complained to the Ombudsman in September 2006 that Jobcentre Plus had left him without payment for three weeks, leaving him with no heating, hot water, food and only cold water to drink. He also complained about Jobcentre Plus’s refusal to compensate him. At interview, Mr K told us that Jobcentre Plus’s actions had meant he could not properly take his heart medicine which had to be taken with food; he had used candles for light; and he had lost touch with his brothers because he would not open his door to them at the time because of his shame at his poverty. He told us that Jobcentre Plus did not ask him how their actions had impacted on him before making the compensation decision.
Our investigation focused on Jobcentre Plus’s handling of Mr K’s request to change his payment method, and their consideration of a compensation payment.
What our investigation found
Jobcentre Plus should not have suspended Mr K’s payments. Instead, they should have changed the payment method first to ensure his payments would be made by cheque and if they wished to establish his intentions about future payments they should have asked him. Their decision to stop paying benefit into Mr K’s bank account but not to start paying it by cheque was maladministration.
Jobcentre Plus were not at fault in making the 13 February 2006 payment directly into Mr K’s bank account, as they had not by then received his letter of 11 February.
In general we expect bodies to be given the opportunity to put things right as soon as possible. In this case we accepted it was reasonable for Mr K to have asked his MP for help (rather than contact Jobcentre Plus) because of his history of needing her intervention. It was disappointing that Jobcentre Plus did not ask Mr K why he chose to approach his MP for help, or to ask him how their maladministration had affected him.
We partly upheld Mr K’s complaint and concluded our investigation in September 2007.
Outcome
As a result of our recommendations, Jobcentre Plus:
- reconsidered their compensation decision (examining carefully the situation Mr K found himself in), and awarded him compensation of £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience he suffered; and
- apologised to Mr K for not offering him an appropriate payment earlier.
Jobcentre Plus also gave an undertaking that a named officer would ensure a prompt response to any future correspondence from Mr K. They said they would send a holding reply to any future correspondence within five days and a full response within ten days, in line with their normal service standards.
Principles for Remedy
The Principles for Remedy were not referred to in our report but this case summary serves to illustrate the following Principles:
- ‘Getting it right’ (considering all the relevant factors when deciding the appropriate remedy).
- ‘Acting fairly and proportionately’ (offering a remedy that is fair and proportionate to the complainant’s hardship or injustice).
