Mrs M's complaint about Jobcentre Plus
Jump to
In Mrs M’s case, problems arose because Jobcentre Plus had not ensured that Coroners’ Offices provided correct information about bereavement benefit; as a result 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.
Background to the complaint
Mrs M’s husband died suddenly in December 2004. The death was reported to the Coroner’s Office which issued the Ministry of Justice’s leaflet When sudden death occurs. Several months later Mrs M learnt that she could have applied for bereavement benefit, which includes a lump sum bereavement payment and bereavement allowance which is paid for up to 52 weeks after the date of death. In August 2005 Mrs M applied for and received the bereavement payment. She was also awarded bereavement allowance backdated three months (the maximum allowed) to 1 May 2005. She then unsuccessfully appealed against the decision not to backdate the award to December 2004, and so lost 18 weeks’ entitlement to bereavement allowance.
In November 2005 Mrs M complained to Jobcentre Plus that they had treated her unfairly and asked them to compensate her for the lost bereavement allowance. She said she had been treated differently from a person registering a death at a Register Office; if she had received from the Coroner’s Office the same information that Register Offices supply she would have made a timely claim for bereavement allowance. Jobcentre Plus’s reply did not respond directly to Mrs M’s compensation request, but said that the procedures then in place in Coroners’ Offices ‘appeared to cover all eventualities’.
Mrs M complained to the Ombudsman, through her MP, about Jobcentre Plus. We referred the matter back to Jobcentre Plus in September 2006 for investigation. They asked the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) to contribute a response to the MP. In October Jobcentre Plus told the MP that Mrs M’s benefit had been backdated as far as the law allowed; that the leaflet Mrs M had received from the Coroners Office pointed her towards Jobcentre Plus; and that Coroners’ Offices also held copies of DWP’s leaflet D49 on what to do after a death. Jobcentre Plus said Mrs M could request compensation if she felt there had been maladministration.
The Minister of State at DCA wrote to the MP, in November 2006, referring to the leaflet When sudden death occurs, and said that the leaflet had referred to the fact that copies of leaflet D49 could be obtained from Jobcentre Plus. The Minister added that the next time DCA reprinted their own leaflet they would consider revising it to point out that ‘time limits apply and claimants should be aware that if they are late in applying they could lose the right to benefit’. In December Mrs M asked Jobcentre Plus for compensation. She enclosed a copy of the Minister’s letter which she said clearly indicated that DCA ‘considered the present situation to be unacceptable’. Jobcentre Plus refused Mrs M’s request for compensation, saying that ‘it is not accepted that the Department has made a mistake with your claim’.
In May 2007 Mrs M asked Jobcentre Plus to review their decision. They upheld their decision, explaining in a letter that the onus was on the customer to enquire about potential entitlement to benefits and to claim within the time limits. In response to Mrs M’s complaint that she had been treated inequitably as a result of registering her husband’s death at a Coroner’s Office, the letter said:
‘The primary duty of Coroners and their officers is to investigate violent, unnatural or sudden deaths of which the cause is unknown. In carrying out this duty they issue the leaflet “When sudden death occurs” to alert the bereaved to the existence of bereavement benefits … . The Coroner in this case discharged their duty and sent the leaflet. It should also be noted that [DCA] has not made a recommendation to change those procedures but will “consider” changing the wording in the leaflet for future publications of the leaflet … I therefore conclude that there is no evidence of a clear and unambiguous error by [DWP] and a special payment award is refused.’
In July 2007 the MP referred Mrs M’s complaint back to the Ombudsman saying that Mrs M remained dissatisfied with the response from Jobcentre Plus. The Ombudsman accepted Mrs M’s complaint for investigation in August.
What we investigated
Our investigation looked at what information about bereavement benefit the Coroner’s Office had given Mrs M and how that compared with the information she would have been given if she had reported her husband’s death to a Register Office.
Mrs M said that the difference in treatment between two groups of people in similar positions was unfair, and could result in different (and entirely predictable) outcomes as regards the benefits to which a bereaved person was entitled. She said she had not been given clear information about possible entitlement to bereavement benefits, and so she had been unaware of her entitlement to bereavement allowance until the deadline for claiming the full amount had passed. Mrs M said she had lost about £1,500 in benefit.
What our investigation found
Given that the complaint we referred back to Jobcentre Plus concerned alleged maladministration on their part, it should not have been necessary for Mrs M to have to ask for compensation. Jobcentre Plus should themselves have referred the matter to their special payments team; their response of October 2006 therefore showed a regrettable lack of customer focus and was not in line with the Principles of Good Administration.
Because Mrs M’s husband had died suddenly she had to report his death to the Coroner’s Office. The information they gave her did not provide a sufficiently clear pointer to her possible entitlement to bereavement benefit, and did not include correct information about where she should claim. Instead, the leaflet When sudden death occurs merely referred to a DWP leaflet and said that it explained ‘benefit procedures’, adding incorrectly that the leaflet could be obtained from the Benefits Agency of the Department of Social Security (DWP’s predecessor). None of the information from the Coroner’s Office referred specifically to bereavement benefit or explained that claims should be made to Jobcentre Plus, or that the DWP leaflet could be obtained from Jobcentre Plus. By contrast, if Mrs M had reported her husband’s death to a Register Office she would have been given: an oral indication of her potential entitlement to bereavement benefit; form BD8 which included a prompt to claim bereavement benefit and explained that claims should be made to Jobcentre Plus; and leaflet D49 which repeated that information and gave the time limits for applying for the bereavement payment and allowance.
We concluded that it was unreasonable of Jobcentre Plus not to have ensured that Coroners’ Offices provided correct information about possible entitlement to bereavement benefit. Instead, they allowed a situation to continue over a long period whereby the information given out by Coroners’ Offices was inadequate and incorrect. That was maladministrative, and resulted in one group of potential claimants being placed at a disadvantage compared with another. In Mrs M’s case, by the time she became aware of her entitlement to bereavement allowance she did not qualify for the full amount.
We upheld Mrs M’s complaint and concluded our investigation in September 2008.
Outcome
As a result of our recommendations, Jobcentre Plus:
- paid £1,411.38 to Mrs M (an amount equivalent to the bereavement allowance lost), plus £204.68 interest;
- paid her compensation of £100; and
- agreed that a senior officer would send an apology for the inconvenience and upset caused.
