Mrs H's complaint about Jobcentre Plus
Jump to
In Mrs H’s case, Jobcentre Plus compounded their original delay in processing her claim for jobseeker’s allowance by taking too long to deal with her complaint about that matter.
Background to the complaint
On 22 May 2006 Mrs H claimed jobseeker’s allowance at Ilford Jobcentre Plus (Ilford). Her claim was sent for processing on 26 May, and on 12 June it was passed to the Specialist Decision Makers Team for consideration because of Mrs H’s previous self-employment. On 13 June Mrs H asked about the progress of her claim, and was told to ring Ilford. When she did so, they took three hours to answer her call, only to tell her to ring the Processing Centre. She tried ringing the Processing Centre for several hours the next day without her calls being answered. Mrs H finally got through and was told her claim had been sent to a Specialist Decision Maker.
On 27 June 2006 Mrs H was interviewed for a position as a chauffeur. The company wanted to offer her the position, but offered it to someone else as they understood Mrs H was not in a financial position to apply for her private hire licence. Mrs H arranged a medical examination for 10 July to obtain a certificate of her fitness to hold a licence, but cancelled it as she could not afford the £30 fee. On 11 July Mrs H asked again about her claim, and was advised to ring the Processing Centre. They told her to call the Specialist Decision Maker; when she did so she was told to call the Processing Centre. During July Mrs H called the Processing Centre three times to enquire about her claim. Twice she was promised call-backs she never received and the third time she was told her claim would be processed that day, although it was not. Also in July Mrs H’s local authority served a Notice on her seeking possession of her tenancy for rent arrears, and declined her housing benefit claim. A second medical examination was cancelled as Mrs H could not afford the fee. On 21 July it was decided to allow Mrs H’s claim for jobseeker’s allowance. It was approved on 2 August and the arrears paid. Mrs H complained to Jobcentre Plus on 7 August saying that her claim had taken ten weeks to process, leading to difficulties with her local authority and her medical appointment. Jobcentre Plus replied saying that ‘the delays were as a result of a specialist decision maker being required’ and concluded that their service was below standard. They suggested that Mrs H ask for compensation.
Mrs H’s medical examination finally took place on 21 August 2006 and on 8 September she bought postal orders worth £298 to pay for her licence. (Mrs H said that 21 August was the earliest available appointment after her benefit arrears were paid, and that she had had to wait for a further benefit payment before she could afford the postal orders). Mrs H started work as a chauffeur on 2 October. (Mrs H told us that if her claim had been approved earlier, she would have had the confidence of regular benefit payments and borrowed any money she needed to apply for her licence, probably from her father. She would then have been able to start work earlier.) On 13 October Mrs H wrote to request compensation, and she regularly chased progress. In January 2007 Jobcentre Plus told Mrs H that they had mislaid her file and invited her to resubmit her request, which she did. In April the Ombudsman received Mrs H’s complaint, and we began our investigation in May.
Jobcentre Plus’s special payment submission said Mrs H’s jobseeker’s allowance claim had been delayed because of a backlog at the Specialist Decision Makers Team, and that she had been treated badly when she contacted them. Mrs H’s request for compensation was refused. The decision letter of 8 May 2007 said that compensation for delay in paying benefit was payable only if four conditions were satisfied, one of them being that ‘the mistake meant that you were not paid within the maximum period for dealing with your claim. In the case of Jobseekers Allowance … the maximum period for dealing with a claim is three months’. The letter explained that no compensation would be paid to Mrs H because her benefit had been paid within three months. Mrs H wrote back, saying that her compensation request had also related to the delay in obtaining a licence and therefore a job as a chauffeur, the impact on her health, the effect on her housing benefit and the threat of repossession, and the expenses she had incurred. She also mentioned the delay in considering her request.
Jobcentre Plus reviewed their compensation decision in September 2007. They accepted that Mrs H’s claim could have been paid by 3 July 2006; that they had not kept her informed of progress; that she had experienced telephony difficulties; and that they had delayed considering her compensation request. They proposed a payment of £100 for inconvenience and £20 for costs. Also, interest on the benefit arrears was calculated from the date that Jobcentre Plus accepted they should have been paid to the actual date of payment, but in line with their normal practice they made no payment as the sum was less than £10. Jobcentre Plus invited Mrs H to provide objective evidence that her health issues had resulted from their maladministration, and said they would consider a further award.
What we investigated
We investigated Mrs H’s complaint that Jobcentre Plus had:
- delayed processing her jobseeker’s allowance claim and had not kept her informed of progress or responded to her enquiries; and
- delayed considering her compensation request, and made an unreasonable decision.
Mrs H complained that the delays meant that she could not afford the medical examination and the licence, which delayed her starting work. She said the delay had caused stress and exacerbated existing medical conditions, and meant she was unable to claim housing benefit which led to difficulty paying her rent, and the threat of repossession. She said she also suffered expenses in chasing the progress of her claim.
What our investigation found
Mrs H’s claim was not progressed in the two weeks before it was passed to the Specialist Decision Makers Team. Although she repeatedly chased progress, no attention was paid to the claim until nearly six weeks later. Mrs H had to spend hours telephoning Jobcentre Plus to chase up her claim and compensation request. Given that she was told to make her enquiries by telephone, it was unacceptable that Jobcentre Plus did not have a telephone system in place to enable them to deal with enquiries. On four occasions Jobcentre Plus told Mrs H to ring other offices, which then could not help her. They should also have called Mrs H back as they promised her.
One of the Principles of Good Administration is ‘Being customer focused’. This includes behaving helpfully, dealing with people promptly within reasonable timescales and telling people if things take longer than they can reasonably expect. A failure to meet one or more Principles does not necessarily indicate maladministration. However in this case, taken together, the failure to process Mrs H’s claim promptly, the lack of an appropriate system for customers to contact Jobcentre Plus and the failures to deal appropriately with Mrs H’s enquiries are so significant as to be maladministration.
Mrs H’s claim required input from a Specialist Decision Maker, but it was not otherwise complicated and should have been dealt with promptly. Once work started on her claim, it was approved in less than two weeks. Mrs H’s claim should have been able to be processed within or close to the average actual clearance time for jobseeker’s allowance at the time of her claim (15 to 19 days). In their first special payment decision, Jobcentre Plus applied the guidelines on financial redress as a rigid set of rules, rather than consider Mrs H’s case on its merits. Their approach on review was more appropriate, but they took no account of the first two weeks’ delay.
One of the Principles for Remedy is ‘Acting fairly and proportionately’. Public bodies’ complaints procedures should offer a fair and appropriate remedy when a complaint is valid. In this case, Jobcentre Plus should have calculated interest based on the average actual clearance time of around 15 to 19 days, unless there was a reason to do otherwise. Their failure to do so, even at review, is further maladministration. ‘Getting it right’, another of the Principles for Remedy, includes quickly acknowledging and putting right cases of maladministration that have led to injustice. Jobcentre Plus should have considered a compensation payment for Mrs H as soon as they paid her arrears, and certainly once she had complained about the delay. Instead, Mrs H had to request compensation, chase this up and resubmit her evidence. She waited nine months for a decision, and the review took a further four months. This too was maladministration.
As for the injustice to Mrs H, we could not be certain that she would have been able to apply for her licence earlier (and started work earlier) had Jobcentre Plus paid her benefit sooner. Although she would have received a lump sum sooner, it would have been for a lesser amount (being for fewer weeks’ arrears). In fact, Mrs H needed the arrears and an additional benefit payment before she could apply for her licence. As she would have had about the same expenses as she actually did have, we did not see that she could have afforded the licence any earlier than she did. Nor were we persuaded that the delay prevented Mrs H borrowing money to pay for her licence. However, she did suffer outrage, stress and inconvenience, and the worry of the local authority’s possession Notice.
We fully upheld Mrs H’s complaint and concluded our investigation in March 2008.
Outcome
To fully remedy the injustice to Mrs H, we recommended that Jobcentre Plus:
- pay her compensation of £300; and
- consider if interest was due on the benefit arrears, on the basis that the claim could and should have been dealt with within 15 to 19 days.
Jobcentre Plus agreed to our recommendations.
