Foreword
Jump to
In 2007-08 the Parliamentary Ombudsman received 7,341 complaints about government departments and a range of other public bodies. Of these, 2,574 were about the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
It is not surprising that the largest number of complaints to my Office concern DWP given the size and nature of DWP’s business, serving as they do over 20 million customers at any one time. It is understandable that mistakes will happen. In fact, it is inevitable.
What is important is how DWP dealt with the complaints arising from mistakes. Many, but by no means all, of the complaints I received could have been resolved much sooner and by DWP themselves, if the complaint handling had been more customer focused and this should have happened. I hope that DWP, and other public bodies, will find my recent publication, Principles of Good Complaint Handling, helpful when they reflect on the lessons that might be drawn from the cases that follow.
The cases included in this digest have been selected because they illustrate the wide variety of complaints and complainants, and the often serious results, when DWP get things wrong. I have identified five themes flowing from these cases:
- poor information provision;
- delay;
- poor record keeping;
- falling between the gaps; and
- poor complaint handling.
Poor information provision can have serious consequences. Jobcentre Plus’s efforts to inform widowed fathers that they could claim bereavement benefits were inadequate. As a result, when Mr Q’s wife died and he became responsible for bringing up his son alone, Mr Q remained unaware that he was eligible for widowed parent’s allowance and did not claim that benefit for over four years. In response to the Ombudsman’s investigation and recommendations DWP, amongst other things, apologised and paid Mr Q £28,130, equivalent to the benefit he had lost, plus interest of £5,899. (Link to Mr Q’s complaint.)
Delay by The Pension Service caused Mr C to incur avoidable legal costs after the death of his aunt. The delay in updating his aunt’s records meant that they were not able to make a timely and accurate decision about whether she had been overpaid, leading to Mr C incurring legal costs as he tried to resolve matters. In response to the Ombudsman’s investigation and recommendations he received an apology, compensation of £250, and £1,160 towards the legal costs he incurred, plus interest. (Link to Mr C’s complaint.)
In Mr D’s case the Child Support Agency’s poor record keeping had a far-reaching impact. Although they realised relatively quickly that he was not the man they were looking for, they continued to pursue him and caused him a great deal of distress for a long time because they had not removed him from their computer system. The Agency agreed to pay Mr D a further £1,225 in compensation, making a total of £1,500, and to reimburse his legal costs and reasonable travel expenses. They also arranged for a senior officer to apologise and be a personal point of contact, should anything go wrong in future. (Link to Mr D’s complaint.)
DWP is an enormous organisation and it is challenging for large departments to avoid communications failings between them. It is not just things that fall between the gaps, however, but people themselves. In Mrs M’s case problems arose after the death of her husband because Jobcentre Plus had not ensured that Coroners’ Offices provided the correct information about bereavement benefit. Consequently, Mrs M fell through a gap in the system and missed the opportunity to claim over a thousand pounds to which she would have been entitled. As a result of our recommendations she received an apology, an amount equivalent to the bereavement allowance lost plus interest, and £100 compensation. (Link to Mrs M’s complaint.)
I continue to see a number of cases where a complaint to my Office could have been avoided had DWP recognised their mistake, apologised and put it right sooner. In Mr T’s case the Child Support Agency’s handling of his complaint was atrocious. They failed to reply to some correspondence, the answers they did give were not always complete, and they provided a very poor service over the telephone. What had started as a relatively simple problem became much more complicated because they failed to ‘put it right’ at the earliest opportunity. Mr T has now received an apology and compensation of £450 as a result of our investigation and recommendations. (Link to Mr T’s complaint.)
As the above cases suggest, local resolution should be the most efficient way to secure an appropriate outcome. It also provides DWP with opportunities to find out and learn from what, if anything, they have done wrong, and to put things right. I consider that DWP themselves or their Independent Case Examiner (ICE) should in most instances be given an opportunity to respond first. Therefore, after a preliminary assessment, I continue to refer the majority of complaints I receive about DWP back to them or to ICE so they have a chance to respond.
My Office is the final stage of the complaints process for government departments and a range of other public bodies. Complaints can only be referred to me by a Member of the House of Commons, and my investigations are carried out in private.
I publish anonymised digests of Reports such as this from time to time to give all public bodies in my jurisdiction the opportunity to learn and improve their services.
This is the first to focus solely on one department. I have focused on DWP primarily because of their importance and the impact of their work.
I have chosen to publish this digest now, in part because it is two years since I published my Principles of Good Administration, which codified certain Principles developed by this Office since its inception in 1967; and also because I consider this is an opportune time to reflect on the way a particular government department, DWP, have embedded those Principles.
I hope that this digest will encourage DWP to continue to engage positively with my Office in seeking ways to improve the service they provide to citizens. I welcome the positive response that I have had from DWP and have summarised the key points of their response in Learning for the future.
Finally, I hope that this digest will give the interested reader an insight into the types of issues I investigate and how I go about my investigative work.
Ann Abraham
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
March 2009
