Miss F's complaint about Jobcentre Plus and Debt Management
Jump to
In Miss F’s case, Jobcentre Plus and Debt Management failed to co-ordinate their actions, and failed to refer her case to Jobcentre Plus’s specialist mortgage interest team when that would have been the appropriate thing to do. All of this caused unnecessary confusion for Miss F.
Background to the complaint
Miss F’s claim for income support
In July 2003 Miss F successfully claimed income support. In January 2004 Jobcentre Plus closed down her claim from October 2003. Miss F successfully reclaimed from 11 March 2004; her mortgage lender told Jobcentre Plus that her outstanding mortgage balance was about £66,000 (the correct balance was £34,879.06).
Fraud investigation
During a fraud investigation in 2004, it was established that Miss F received £150 a month from Miss Y. (Miss F shared a house with Miss Y and this money paid for expenses incurred by Miss Y’s son while she was at work.) These payments stopped in December 2004 pending the outcome of the fraud investigation.
Decision affecting Miss F’s entitlement to income support
Jobcentre Plus decided on 30 December 2004 that Miss F had not been entitled to income support from 11 July 2003, and had been overpaid because she had undeclared income from Miss Y. Jobcentre Plus did not inform Miss F of this decision. On 11 April 2005 Jobcentre Plus told Miss F that they had not taken account of that income when calculating her benefit; and that they would tell her if she had been overpaid, and whether any overpayment was recoverable. The letter did not specify the periods for which they had already decided Miss F had been overpaid. In contrast, Jobcentre Plus gave Miss F’s local authority full details of the decision, prompting them to decide that she was not entitled to council tax benefit from July to October 2003 and April to September 2004. Jobcentre Plus received an appeal from Miss F, which they said they could not accept, as no formal decision had been made.
In May 2005, on the basis of information from the local authority, Miss F appealed against the decision that she was ineligible for income support from July to October 2003 and from April to September 2004. Jobcentre Plus rejected the appeal on the basis that they had not formally decided her entitlement to income support. On 10 June 2005 Miss F withdrew her income support claim. (She was worried about claiming in error, and concerned that the overpayment might increase if she continued to claim.) On 21 June Jobcentre Plus told Miss F that she could not appeal until she had received a decision specifying when she had not been entitled to income support, but as her local authority had given her a decision, she could appeal to them about her council tax benefit. In reply, Miss F referred to Jobcentre Plus’s letter of 11 April which gave her the right of appeal, and said the letters from the local authority suggested that Jobcentre Plus had already decided her benefit entitlement. In July, at the request of an Appeals Officer, Jobcentre Plus informed Miss F that she had not been entitled to income support from 11 July 2003 to 20 December 2004. Miss F appealed again.
In April 2006 Jobcentre Plus wrongly told the Tribunals Service that Miss F’s appeal about her income had lapsed (they had muddled this appeal with one about mortgage interest payments). In September a tribunal decided that the money from Miss Y should not be treated as income for the purposes of calculating her income support. The Tribunals Service forwarded the decision to Debt Management, and they asked Jobcentre Plus for a revised decision in light of the tribunal decision. In December Debt Management calculated a recoverable overpayment of £1,169.01 and a non recoverable overpayment of £27.06. Jobcentre Plus suggested to Debt Management that the overpayment could be written off without the need for a revised decision.
On 17 January 2007 Debt Management asked Miss F to repay £1,169.01. She appealed and provided a copy of the tribunal’s decision. At this point, the Ombudsman received Miss F’s complaint. In July Debt Management revised their decision and told Miss F she had been overpaid from 9 April to 8 November 2004. Income support had been paid in error between 9 November and 20 December 2004, but any overpayment was not recoverable. Miss F appealed, again citing the tribunal’s decision. Following our enquiries, Jobcentre Plus told Miss F’s local authority that the decision not to allow her income support had been revised at appeal. Jobcentre Plus also told Miss F that she had not been overpaid. They also sent a revised decision to Debt Management, and noted that their decision to recover the overpayments was incorrect. Debt Management amended their records.
Overpayment of mortgage interest payments
Jobcentre Plus calculated Miss F’s mortgage interest payments on the basis of the information from her lender, which turned out to be incorrect. In September 2005 Jobcentre Plus asked Debt Management to calculate the resulting overpayment and to consider recoverability. Miss F appealed. In January 2006 Debt Management decided that the overpayment was £895.44 and should be recovered from the lender. They did not tell Miss F about that decision. The lender repaid the money in April, but it remained in a suspense account until December because it bore no reference. In the meantime, Debt Management sent three letters to Miss F in April and May chasing up repayment. On 5 May Jobcentre Plus told Miss F that they had revised their decision about her housing costs and her appeal had lapsed. The lender added the overpayment to Miss F’s mortgage account.
What we investigated
The complaints we investigated were Miss F’s grievances that:
- Jobcentre Plus had given conflicting information to her and her local authority about their decisions concerning her benefit entitlement;
- Debt Management had taken £895.44 from her mortgage account without telling her and without giving her a right of appeal; and
- Debt Management had wrongly tried to recover the income support overpayment.
Miss F said she had closed her income support claim because she was confused about her entitlement and possible overpayments, and so had missed out on help with her mortgage interest and council tax benefit. She had also been distressed and inconvenienced.
What our investigation found
Judged by the Principles of Good Administration, DWP repeatedly failed to ‘get it right’; were not ‘open and accountable’; and completely failed to offer a co-ordinated service between the different parts of DWP, thus lacking ‘customer focus’.
Jobcentre Plus failed to give Miss F proper notice of their decision of 30 December 2004, and should have given her proper notice in April 2005 of the amount and period of the overpayment, and of her right of appeal. Jobcentre Plus gave inconsistent information to Miss F and her local authority. They unfairly refused to accept her appeal; that was poor service and obstructed Miss F’s right to a fair hearing within a reasonable period of time. Jobcentre Plus gave wrong information to the Tribunals Service, delaying Miss F’s appeal and further obstructing her right to a timely hearing. They failed to give Debt Management a revised decision within five working days of receiving the tribunal’s decision, and wrongly suggested that they write off the overpayment, not recognising that the tribunal’s decision meant there was no overpayment. The revised decision was not produced until some 11 months after the tribunal’s decision. That was maladministration.
Debt Management failed to update their records when notified of the overpayment, did not take account of the tribunal’s decision and chased Miss F for a non-existent overpayment. They should also have queried Jobcentre Plus’s view that there was no need for a revised decision. These actions amount to maladministration.
Jobcentre Plus should have referred the mortgage interest overpayment to their housing cost department, while Debt Management did not spot that the matter was not for them to deal with. Finally, although Debt Management correctly approached the lender for repayment, they asked Miss F to repay the money too, and chased her for recovery after the lender had repaid the money. This too was maladministration.
As a result of all that, Miss F was caused worry, inconvenience and aggravation. She had to make unnecessary appeals, and it took longer to resolve her benefit entitlement than it needed to have done. She was also pursued for an overpayment she did not owe. Miss F suffered financial injustice: if Jobcentre Plus had properly explained their decision of December 2004, she would have known they were not disputing her entitlement after 20 December 2004, giving her no reason to withdraw her claim.
We concluded our investigation in September 2008 and upheld Miss F’s complaint.
Outcome
In line with the Principles for Remedy we recommended that:
- Jobcentre Plus make Miss F a payment equivalent to any income support and council tax benefit she lost after withdrawing her claim, together with interest (they later paid her £467.37 plus interest of £57.80);
- Jobcentre Plus and Debt Management pay her compensation of £350 and £150 respectively, to recognise the inconvenience, worry and frustration caused; and
- senior officers from both Jobcentre Plus and Debt Management write to Miss F to apologise for the maladministration of their respective organisations.
Our recommendations were accepted.
