Mr W's complaint about Jobcentre Plus
Jump to
In Mr W’s case, Jobcentre Plus failed to provide a significant piece of information when he enquired about his benefit entitlement, giving him the impression that he would receive more help with his mortgage interest payments than he was actually entitled to receive.
Background to the complaint
Following Mr W’s divorce, he gained custody of his two children. In June 2005 he went to his local Jobcentre Plus office to ask which benefits he would be entitled to if he gave up work to look after his children. He also asked what help he would receive with his mortgage. He said he was told that he would be entitled to income support and child tax credit, and that his mortgage interest would be paid after a qualifying period of 39 weeks. Mr W was surprised that his interest payments would be paid in full, and he returned on two further occasions to check that what he had been told was correct. He said he was given exactly the same information, which he then took to be correct. On the basis of the advice he was given, Mr W gave up work and claimed income support from August.
Approximately four weeks before Mr W expected his first mortgage interest payment, he telephoned Jobcentre Plus. During this conversation, Jobcentre Plus told Mr W that there is a statutory limit (the cap) of £100,000 on the amount of eligible loans on which interest payments are met by income support. The cap meant that not all of Mr W’s mortgage interest payments were covered each month (the monthly shortfall was £269). Mr W subsequently contacted his mortgage lender to try to resolve the situation. He described this as being a ‘nightmare’; his doctor prescribed medication for stress after his mortgage lender told him that his house might be repossessed if he did not meet his payments in full. Mr W subsequently made an arrangement with the mortgage lender, whereby they met the shortfall and added it to his mortgage balance. (This increased Mr W’s mortgage by approximately £10,000 and increased his interest liability.)
What we investigated
We received Mr W’s complaint in March 2007 and investigated whether Jobcentre Plus had misadvised him that his mortgage interest payments would be paid in full. Mr W said that he had suffered significant financial loss and emotional distress as a result of Jobcentre Plus’s actions.
In the course of our investigation we interviewed Mr W.
What our investigation found
Jobcentre Plus did not dispute Mr W’s contention that he was not told about the cap. In their view, the rules surrounding the cap made it too complicated to fall within the remit of general advice. According to Jobcentre Plus, the correct general advice to give potential claimants of income support who had a mortgage, such as Mr W, would be to merely inform them that they may receive assistance with housing costs after 39 weeks. We considered that that advice gave potential claimants only some of the information they need to know: it did not include any information about the rate of interest payable or, crucially, that there is a limit on the assistance available. We also noted DWP’s internal guidance which stated that officials should ensure they give customers full and accurate information.
We concluded that Mr W should have been given full and comprehensive information. This should have included the fact that there was likely to be a limit on the financial assistance available. This was a key piece of information which Mr W needed to know. We found that Jobcentre Plus’s failure to give him full and comprehensive information amounted to maladministration.
We did not find, however, on the balance of probabilities that Jobcentre Plus’s maladministration led to the financial injustice which Mr W claimed. He was, though, caused significant distress, anxiety and inconvenience and deprived of the opportunity to make a properly informed decision about how to best plan his financial situation.
We upheld Mr W’s complaint and concluded our investigation in February 2008.
Outcome
Jobcentre Plus said they would feature Mr W’s complaint in their internal staff bulletin as a reminder to staff that they should ensure that customers are made aware of the upper capital limit when dealing with queries from customers about housing costs. |
