Mr L's complaint about Jobcentre Plus
Jump to
Mr L fell through gaps in Jobcentre Plus’s internal arrangements but he also suffered because Jobcentre Plus failed to alert his local authority to his entitlement to housing benefit when they backdated his claim. Better communication could have prevented many of the problems Mr L encountered.
Background to the complaint
Mr L received jobseeker’s allowance from 22 March 2005. A year later, on the advice of his local Jobcentre Plus office, he applied for income support and incapacity benefit instead, on the grounds of ill health. His claim forms went to the incapacity benefit and income support sections of the Belfast Benefit Delivery Centre (Belfast), which provides benefit processing services for DWP in the London area. He indicated on his forms that he wanted to claim from 22 March 2005.
In April 2006 the income support section noted that they had not received any medical evidence for Mr L’s claim. In effect, they could not allow the claim until they saw that the incapacity benefit section had received suitable medical evidence. Separately, the incapacity benefit section wrote to Mr L. They said he needed to provide a medical certificate if he wanted to claim from 22 March 2005. In fact, Mr L’s claim could not start from March 2005 because he had been receiving jobseeker’s allowance, but Jobcentre Plus did not tell him that. He sent them copies of medical certificates for 2005 and a copy of a psychiatrist’s letter about his condition and treatment. The letter described his alcohol-related health problems. Jobcentre Plus did not consider the documents to be suitable medical evidence.
In the absence of medical evidence, the income support section disallowed Mr L’s claim in May 2006. The decision letter they sent him did not explain that the lack of medical evidence was a reason for the decision. Later in May Mr L provided a doctor’s statement covering two months from 19 May 2006. In June the incapacity benefit section asked Mr L for evidence from March 2006. Mr L replied and confirmed that 18 March 2006 was the date he wished to start his claim. In July the incapacity benefit section allowed his claim. But Mr L received no payment of benefit because his income support claim was already closed. In August he received a summons from the local authority about his council tax arrears. Once his jobseeker’s allowance claim had stopped, his entitlement to help with his rent and council tax had also stopped and arrears had built up.
In August 2006 Mr L made a fresh income support claim. Belfast allowed his claim from 17 August. That was the date they had received the claim, although Mr L had attempted to make it clear that he wanted his claim to start from 18 March 2006. He wrote to them and in October Belfast backdated his claim and sent him arrears of £1,242.84. Belfast did not write to Mr L or to the local authority about the backdating decision. Mr L did not receive the payment – the Royal Mail returned it undelivered. Belfast suspended Mr L’s income support payments, as the returned payment had made them believe they held the wrong address for him. Mr L told them his address, which was unchanged, and Belfast reissued the arrears and reinstated Mr L’s payments. In November the Ombudsman received the MP’s referral of Mr L’s complaint.
In January 2007 we asked Jobcentre Plus to respond to Mr L’s complaint and the Chief Executive replied in February. The letter said that they had closed his claim because: he had not provided medical evidence; they had not backdated his claim of 17 August 2006 because he had not asked them to; and they had returned the arrears payment because he had moved house without telling them. The Chief Executive said that they should have told the local authority about the backdating decision, and apologised for the errors and delays in handling his claim. Mr L replied explaining, among other things, that he had not moved house. The Chief Executive wrote back, responding to the points Mr L had made. In particular, she said she was sorry it had not been made clear to Mr L that the income support claim form had a section for customers to tell Jobcentre Plus anything else they needed to know – which included backdating requests. On 15 May Jobcentre Plus awarded Mr L a compensation payment of £50 by way of apology for failing to tell the local authority that they had backdated his income support claim.
What we investigated
We investigated the way in which Jobcentre Plus handled Mr L’s income support and incapacity benefit claims, and whether their explanations and offer of redress were adequate. Mr L sought further redress for the impact on his health of being in debt to friends and facing threats of eviction. He also wanted an improvement in the way Jobcentre Plus handled his continuing benefit claim.
What our investigation found
Mr L said on his incapacity benefit claim form that he wanted to claim from March 2005. However, he could not be entitled to benefit for the same period that he had been receiving jobseeker’s allowance. The date of claim eventually agreed was 18 March 2006, but Belfast did not query the date of claim until June 2006. Omitting to clarify the start date departed from DWP’s guidance about ensuring that claimants have every opportunity to provide all relevant evidence, and about providing information to the public.
Mr L had tried to provide the required medical evidence. The information fell short of what was needed, but his covering letter should have prompted Belfast to contact him or refer the case to a decision-maker. The regulations and Jobcentre Plus’s guidance do not insist that medical evidence must be medical certificates. The regulations also provide that a self-certificate is sufficient evidence for the first seven days of incapacity. Omitting to clarify matters at this stage was a further departure from DWP’s guidance.
The income support decision letter of May 2006 omitted a significant reason for the refusal (the lack of medical evidence), and did not explain that providing medical evidence within a month would avoid having to make a fresh claim. The income support section could have given Mr L information about requests for backdating when they spoke in early August 2006. Had they done so, they would have been acting in line with DWP’s guidance. They also knew from Jobcentre Plus’s records and Mr L’s claim form that he had been without benefit since March 2006. The income support section also failed to notify either Mr L or his local authority about the decision to backdate his claim.
Cumulatively, Jobcentre Plus mishandled Mr L’s claims. Had they followed DWP’s guidance they would have decided Mr L’s claim much sooner than they did. Instead, they fell far short of the standards described in the Principles of Good Administration; their errors and omissions amounted to maladministration.
Mr L also had difficulty communicating with Jobcentre Plus. We saw evidence that he and his adviser attempted to telephone Belfast but were unable to get through, even to an answering machine. The addresses on letters to Mr L about his claims had various titles and did not consistently provide full contact details. The information in the letters was sometimes too little for Mr L to identify the action he needed to take next, or its urgency. Jobcentre Plus’s records of contact with Mr L and his adviser were incomplete. Thus the arrangements for facilitating claimants to contact Belfast and for ensuring that staff could, and did, comply with Jobcentre Plus’s guidance on record keeping were inadequate. That was also maladministration.
Jobcentre Plus’s complaint handling fell short of the standards set by their own guidance. Given the details available to the special payments officer, we do not see how a properly informed decision about compensation could have been made. In the round, their complaint handling fell far short of the Principles for Remedy, and was maladministrative.
Jobcentre Plus’s maladministration had a significant impact on Mr L: he lacked funds and faced debt recovery action; he was worried about losing his home and about his health; he incurred avoidable costs and had to make repeated telephone calls. Furthermore, Mr L was not in good health (he was receiving treatment to help reduce his alcohol and drug use; he was taking antidepressants; and he was suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, and obsessive compulsive disorder), so the communication problems caused him additional anxiety.
We upheld Mr L’s complaint and concluded our investigation in September 2008.
Outcome
To remedy the injustice to Mr L, Jobcentre Plus agreed to:
- pay him a further £450 by way of apology;
- meet his costs of £34.82, and pay him interest for the loss of use of his benefit arrears; and
- give him the appropriate telephone numbers and address for him to use for queries about his benefit claim.
We also recommended that Jobcentre Plus review their handling of benefit claims and complaints in their Northern Ireland offices.
