Mr H's complaint about the Disability and Carers Service and Jobcentre Plus
Jump to
In Mr H’s case, neither Jobcentre Plus nor the Disability and Carers Service gave him all the relevant information he needed about how saving the mobility component of disability living allowance might impact on his entitlement to other benefits, despite him asking the question directly of both agencies. Debt Management took too long to reach an overpayment decision.
Background to the complaint
In August 1999 Mr H (who was severely disabled due to a spinal cord injury) was awarded the higher rate mobility and care components of disability living allowance. He also received income support. In 2000 Mr H enquired about obtaining a modified vehicle to increase his mobility. He believed that the Motability Scheme did not support his requirements and decided to save up his disability living allowance in order to buy a vehicle and make modifications himself. (The Motability Scheme is overseen by a charity called Motability. People who receive the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance are eligible to participate in the Scheme. Individuals can use that part of their disability living allowance to lease or purchase a vehicle through the Scheme.)
In March 2000 Mr H contacted the disability living allowance helpline and the Benefits Agency (then responsible for income support claims), gave full details of his circumstances and said that he wanted to save his disability living allowance to purchase a vehicle. He was told he could save his disability living allowance and that other benefits would not be affected, but he was not told that his income support might be affected if he saved a certain amount of money.
In 2002 Mr H became concerned that his neighbour was making false allegations against him, particularly in relation to benefit fraud. Mr H wrote to ask Jobcentre Plus and the Disability and Carers Service if allegations had been made against him and followed those letters up with telephone calls to Jobcentre Plus in September and October to ask if his benefit claims were in order. He was told that ‘everything was ok’. He was advised to contact the Disability and Carers Service in response to his questions about saving disability living allowance. In October Mr H wrote to the Disability and Carers Service and then made telephone calls in October and November in which he spoke about his ongoing concerns with his neighbours, and asked for assurance that he was acting legally by saving his disability living allowance. He was told that the advice given in 2000 was correct and that his disability living allowance would not affect other benefits, even if saved.
In December 2004 Mr H telephoned the Disability and Carers Service with a query about a pre-budget reference to a change in the law on bank account savings. Mr H was told that the benefit law had not changed and that no changes that would alter his ability to save his disability living allowance were expected.
In February 2006 a Jobcentre Plus fraud investigator visited Mr H and said that no amount of savings, above the specific levels in benefits legislation, was exempt from examination. By Mr H’s account, he then telephoned the Disability and Carers Service and told them that the information they had previously given him was wrong; and that the officer he spoke to and a supervisor had both repeated the previous advice that he could save disability living allowance without it affecting his other benefits. Mr H then complained to his MP about the handling of his case. Also in February, a Jobcentre Plus fraud investigator told Mr H that his savings had affected his income support eligibility, and informed Mr H’s MP that the Disability and Carers Service had confirmed that their advice to Mr H had been that he could save his disability living allowance without it affecting other benefits.
At the start of March 2006 Mr H told Jobcentre Plus that he had saved enough money to buy a van and asked if he could purchase one. On the same day the Disability and Carers Service told a Jobcentre Plus fraud investigator that their general reply (to queries like Mr H’s) would be that disability living allowance would not affect other benefits. They added that as they only dealt with disability living allowance and attendance allowance they did not have a lot of knowledge of other benefits, and that they did not realise that Mr H would be saving for such a length of time as to affect his income support. Later that month Jobcentre Plus decided that Mr H’s income support should have been reduced from 9 August 2000 (as he had more than £3,000 in savings) and stopped altogether from 4 June 2003 (as he had over £8,000 in savings). Mr H was told that his entitlement would be recalculated and that he would be informed of any overpayment. (Mr H appealed against the income support decision.) In a separate letter to Mr H, Jobcentre Plus provided more information about their decision and said that they considered it acceptable for Mr H to spend his savings on a van. (Jobcentre Plus should also have told Mr H that from 10 April 2006 the capital upper limit for income support was increasing to £16,000 and the amount to be disregarded was increasing to £6,000.)
Jobcentre Plus said that they transferred Mr H’s file to Debt Management at the end of March 2006 for an overpayment calculation. In April Mr H’s MP referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. At the end of April Mr H paid a deposit for a van and then claimed income support, which was awarded backdated to 12 April 2006. Debt Management said that they did not receive Mr H’s case until 5 May. The file was then returned to Jobcentre Plus as the information on it was incomplete.
In June 2006 the Ombudsman accepted Mr H’s complaint for investigation. In August Jobcentre Plus told us that they were unable to confirm the status of Mr H’s file or when a decision on his case might be made. In October Mr H told the Disability and Carers Service that if he had not been misinformed he would not have pursued the saving of disability living allowance in the way that he did. In November Mr H advised us that his wife was unwell and had attempted suicide; he believed that the ongoing problems with DWP had contributed to her actions. In December Jobcentre Plus confirmed that they were seeking a bank statement from Mr H’s bank (which they obtained in February 2007). The file was then returned to Debt Management.
In March 2007 Debt Management received advice that the overpayment was recoverable from Mr H and a decision was issued seeking repayment of £3,813.30. Mr H appealed against the overpayment. In September a tribunal dismissed Mr H’s income support appeal, and decided that the income support paid from 9 September 2000 to 8 September 2002 was recoverable, but not the income support paid from 2002 onwards, as they were satisfied that Mr H had declared the capital. DWP later decided not to recover the remaining recoverable overpayment of £282.
What we investigated
Mr H complained that:
- Jobcentre Plus and the Disability and Carers Service had misdirected him about saving his disability living allowance, and failed to provide a joined-up service;
- Jobcentre Plus and Debt Management had decided wrongly that he had been overpaid income support and that the debt was recoverable, and had taken too long to reach that decision; and
- both Jobcentre Plus and the Disability and Carers Service had discriminated against him on the grounds of his disability, in that the Motability Scheme did not offer the support he needed but they penalised him for using the benefit intended to support his mobility needs.
Mr H said that he and his family suffered intense distress and gross inconvenience.
We did not investigate Mr H’s lost entitlement to income support as that was considered by the tribunal at the same time as his appeal against the overpayment decision.
We did not investigate the actions of Motability, as they are outside the Ombudsman’s remit.
What our investigation found
We found that Jobcentre Plus and the Disability and Carers Service had misdirected Mr H by, between them, not giving him all the relevant information about his entitlements; what he could and could not expect from them; and about his own responsibilities. Both bodies failed to tell him that saving up disability living allowance might affect his income support entitlement. In reaching that finding we took particular note of the customer service goals of both bodies which aim to give people the information they need to make decisions about their individual benefit entitlement. We also took account of the fact that Disability and Carers Service advisers should provide information and advice on a wide range of benefits and services, which will assist them to understand customers’ needs on a general level. Had Mr H received complete information, he would have sought a different solution to his need for an adapted vehicle, would not have come to the attention of fraud investigation officers (with the anxiety that brought) and could have chosen to spend his disability living allowance differently (rather than taking a decision in haste to spend his savings on a van that was not suited to his needs).
We found that Jobcentre Plus and Debt Management took too long to reach the overpayment decision: there was no adequate explanation for their failure to take any action on this matter between May and December 2006. The additional uncertainty this created caused Mr and Mrs H acute anxiety.
We did not find that Mr H had been discriminated against on the grounds of his disability. The bar to Mr H building up the capital he needed to obtain a suitable vehicle derived from the content of social security legislation, rather than from the administrative actions of the Disability and Carers Service and Jobcentre Plus.
The investigation concluded in February 2008 and we partly upheld Mr H’s complaint.
Outcome
As a result of our recommendations:
- Jobcentre Plus paid £1,050 to Mr H for the impact of their errors (£600 for incomplete advice, the time taken to consider his complaint, the need to go to appeal and the delay in considering the overpayment; £200 for the embarrassment Mr H suffered; and £250 for the severe distress caused to Mr and Mrs H);
- the Disability and Carers Service paid £950 to Mr H by way of apology (£500 for being denied the knowledge to make an informed decision about using his disability living allowance, and for the consequences of receiving too much income support; £200 for the embarrassment Mr H suffered; and £250 for the severe distress caused);
- the Disability and Carers Service and Debt Management each sent a letter of apology;
- Jobcentre Plus and the Disability and Carers Service said that the effect of saving disability living allowance had not been properly explained to Mr H, and that this issue would be included in the next refresher training for helpline staff;
- Jobcentre Plus and the Disability and Carers Service updated their partnership agreement to allow issues to be resolved through their respective external relations and customer services managers, and for Disability and Carers Service staff to access two Jobcentre Plus databases;
- the Disability and Carers Service updated their guidance to include a section on dealing with telephone calls where the person asks if disability living allowance payments affect means-tested benefits; and
- DWP set up a working group to share good practice across their businesses; to address performance issues; and to help bring about a more seamless service for customers.
