Mr G's complaint about Jobcentre Plus
Jump to
In Mr G’s case, Jobcentre Plus lost his papers, hampering our, and their own, investigation of his complaint.
Background to the complaint
Mr G separated from his wife, leaving the marital home, in October 2005. He was made redundant January 2006 (he had previously been self-employed), and claimed jobseeker’s allowance in February 2006. The claim had not been dealt with by the time he reconciled with his wife and moved back to the marital home on 27 April. Mr G then made a fresh claim for himself and his wife in April. On 22 May Jobcentre Plus said that they were looking into Mr G’s circumstances before deciding his claim. In particular, they were considering the implications of his self-employment and his ownership of a ‘second property’. In June Mr G told Jobcentre Plus that he had found employment.
On 1 August 2006 Jobcentre Plus told Mr G that he was not entitled to jobseeker’s allowance because he had not paid enough class 1 National Insurance contributions (as an employee) and because he had savings of £16,000 or more. Mr G queried the decision: he said he had previously been told that his contributions were sufficient to support a claim, and said he did not have over £16,000 in savings. On 1 September Jobcentre Plus told Mr G that the tax years 2003-04 and 2004-05 were relevant to his claim for contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance, and that he had paid only ‘self-employed’ contributions (class 2 contributions) during those tax years. Jobcentre Plus referred to a property ‘in which you do not reside’ and said that Mr G was being treated as having capital of £97,000, and so he was not entitled to income-based jobseeker’s allowance. (When a claim is made by a person after leaving the marital home, the value of the claimant’s interest in the home is treated as capital after an initial period of 26 weeks.) On 5 September Mr G wrote to Jobcentre Plus saying they had ignored the fact that he had been employed for six months in the year before his unemployment, and that although he jointly owned the marital home, he received no income from it and had paid rent on his own temporary accommodation.
Meanwhile, in August 2006, the Ombudsman received Mr G’s complaint about Jobcentre Plus. In September we asked the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus to respond to the complaint. Accordingly, Jobcentre Plus wrote to Mr G’s MP (but did not copy their letter to Mr G). They said Mr G had not received the level of service he was entitled to expect, and apologised for the inconvenience caused. They explained that Mr G had not paid sufficient class 1 contributions in the relevant tax year (those he had paid fell outside the relevant tax years). They said that, because Mr G was living apart from his wife at the start of his claim, the value of the matrimonial home had to be taken into account when determining his available capital. Jobcentre Plus said that after Mr G returned to the marital home, his wife’s part-time earnings had to be taken into account and they had sent him forms on which to declare them. (Mr G received the forms but had mistakenly thought they were for him to declare his earnings.)
On 3 January 2007 Jobcentre Plus told Mr G that they had looked at his claim ‘following a recent change’, and had awarded him jobseeker’s allowance from 10 January 2006. They would make him a final payment for the period from 10 February to 31 March 2006 excluding three ‘waiting days’, but he was not entitled from 7 June 2006 because he worked for more than 16 hours a week. Mr G then asked Jobcentre Plus about payment for the period between 1 April and 7 June 2006. Jobcentre Plus told Mr G that he was entitled to income-based jobseeker’s allowance from 28 March 2006 because of ‘a change in savings’, but that he was not entitled from 7 June 2006 because of the hours he worked. They paid him a further three days’ allowance, but said nothing about payment for 1 April to 7 June.
What we investigated
Mr G was dissatisfied with Jobcentre Plus’s response to his complaint and in June 2007 the Ombudsman decided to investigate his complaint. We investigated his complaint that Jobcentre Plus had mishandled his claims for jobseeker’s allowance made in February and April 2006, and that they handled his complaints about that poorly.
Mr G said he had been caused inconvenience and outrage and, potentially, suffered a financial loss. He wanted his jobseeker’s allowance claim paid in full, an explanation for the delays and lack of responses, and compensation for that.
In the course of our investigation we made enquiries of Jobcentre Plus, but they could not find the papers relating to Mr G’s claim.
What our investigation found
The loss of Mr G’s papers was maladministrative and prevented us from making any assessment of why the delays in his case occurred. It also prevented Jobcentre Plus from dealing with his April 2006 claim for jobseeker’s allowance.
In respect of Mr G’s February 2006 claim, it is not known if Jobcentre Plus knew in August 2006 when he had left the marital home, but they ought to have found out before deciding that the 26-week rule applied from the start of his claim. They acted maladministratively in reaching a decision that did not take account of all the relevant considerations.
The decision of 3 January 2007 appears consistent with the legislation about the 26-week rule, but we did not accept Jobcentre Plus’s subsequent assertion to us that it was only the loss of Mr G’s papers that led them to reach that decision. If they had dealt with Mr G’s claim without unreasonable delay, they could have assessed his claim correctly by 6 May 2006. We found their maladministration delayed the payment of Mr G’s entitlement by eight months.
Jobcentre Plus failed to deal properly with Mr G’s second claim. They made enquiries about his wife’s earnings but because they did not explain clearly what information they needed, Mr G provided details of his own income instead. Mr G drew his mistake to the attention of Jobcentre Plus but they did not reply for six months. The lack of clarity and the lateness of their response was maladministrative. Jobcentre Plus told us that there was no evidence that they had processed Mr G’s claim. That failure was maladministrative and caused injustice to Mr G as his claim for the period 27 April to 6 June 2006 was undecided.
We were unable to say whether Jobcentre Plus had misled Mr G about the sufficiency of his contribution payments, or whether there had been a genuine misunderstanding. That would involve a level of detail that neither party could be expected to recall clearly now.
We saw no evidence that Jobcentre Plus answered Mr G’s complaint about the reasonableness of taking into account the value of the marital home. The legislation required them to do so, but they should have explained that more clearly to him. Had they done so, their failure to deal properly with his claim in the first place might have come to light sooner. Jobcentre Plus’s failure to copy to Mr G their response to his MP showed a lack of customer focus, and they did not consider his complaint properly. They acknowledged they were responsible for delays, but to simply observe that they had not processed Mr G’s second claim, without considering the implications of that for him, was extremely poor. Jobcentre Plus’s poor complaint handling caused inconvenience and led to an investigation by this Office which should not have been necessary.
In summary, Jobcentre Plus caused Mr G considerable inconvenience over a very long time through their maladministration. They did not have the information they needed to determine his April 2006 claim and did not operate an effective complaints procedure.
We upheld Mr G’s complaint and concluded our investigation in March 2008.
Outcome
To remedy the injustice to Mr G, Jobcentre Plus agreed to:
- pay him £400 to compensate him for the inconvenience and trouble he was put to;
- consider paying him interest on the arrears paid on his first claim;
- offer to interview him to reconstruct his second claim, and pay him any arrears with interest;
- compensate him for any reasonable but unnecessary expenses incurred as a result of their delays in sorting out his benefit entitlement; and
- check and confirm to him that they have credited him with all the contributions he was entitled to between 6 February and 7 June 2006.
