Mrs U’s complaint about Jobcentre Plus
Jump to
Our investigation of Mrs U’s case illustrates how our work on an individual’s complaint can uncover underlying problems. Mrs U was misled about whether she could claim jobseeker’s allowance because the officer she spoke to, and others in Jobcentre Plus, did not properly understand how to apply the rules about how benefit claims are ‘linked’.
Background to the complaint
In August 2005 Mrs U was made redundant. She claimed contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance and her entitlement ended on 4 March 2006, having claimed for the maximum of 182 days in one jobseeking period. Mrs U said that, when she signed off, a Jobcentre Plus officer told her of the possibility of claiming again in just over 12 weeks’ time if she remained unemployed. (A jobseeking period may be ‘linked’ with an earlier one if separated by any period of no more than 12 weeks. The earlier jobseeking period is treated as continuing, so that the question of whether a person satisfies the National Insurance contribution conditions for benefit is decided by looking at the situation at the start of the first jobseeking period.)
Mrs U claimed incapacity benefit from 12 to 18 March 2006. On 5 June she again claimed contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance, in the belief that more than 12 weeks had passed since her incapacity benefit claim had ended. On 5 July, after establishing that her claim would not succeed (as it ‘linked’ to her incapacity benefit claim), Mrs U went to her local Jobcentre Plus office to close her claim from 21 June. She asked Officer A on what date she could make a successful claim in future. They both had calendars with them, and Mrs U asked if 14 September was the correct date. She said Officer A confirmed that it was. (In fact, the correct date was 15 September. Officer A later told us that he probably had confirmed that the break between jobseeking periods should be 12 weeks, and so 14 September had seemed right. He noted from his account of the events of 5 July – written on 21 August 2006 – that he had twice referred to a 12-week break between claims, and felt this showed he had probably wrongly advised Mrs U, because the break should actually be 12 weeks and 1 day.)
Also on 5 July 2006 Mrs U complained to Jobcentre Plus that it was unfair that the onus was on the claimant to claim on the correct date, when there was no reference to the linking rules in their literature. She asked to revise the date of her claim to 11 June, a date she thought would not link to her incapacity benefit claim. Jobcentre Plus replied on 3 August saying that the onus was on the claimant to obtain the necessary information. Mrs U responded that Jobcentre Plus had not addressed her question about obtaining the information necessary to understand the linking rules. In their reply, Jobcentre Plus referred Mrs U to leaflet QCJSAA5JPW for general information on linking rules and explained that it was difficult to produce generic advice for every scenario as the rules were complex. They referred Mrs U to DWP’s website for information on the linking rules, and to the Decision Makers Guide. (Mrs U found no reference to the linking rules on the website and was unaware that the Decision Makers Guide was accessible on the internet to non-Jobcentre Plus staff.)
On 14 September 2006 Mrs U telephoned Jobcentre Plus to claim contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance again (in line with what she had been told on 5 July). She was interviewed by Officer B on 21 September and told that her claim did not link with the one which had ended on 21 June 2006. (At interview, Officer B showed us how he had worked out that Mrs U’s new claim did not link with the previous one. But after consulting the Decision Makers Guide and obtaining clarification during the interview, he realised he should have disregarded the ‘first day of the second period’, which was 14 September 2006. He acknowledged he had been unaware of that method of calculation, and said he would have suggested that Mrs U amend her claim if he had realised that her new claim linked to her previous one.) Jobcentre Plus disallowed Mrs U’s claim because her entitlement was based on National Insurance contributions that had run out. Her appeal about this decision was unsuccessful.
In March 2007 Mrs U asked Jobcentre Plus for compensation for having been misdirected. They refused a payment, on the grounds that they probably had not misdirected her. In June Mrs U complained to the Ombudsman. We referred the matter to Jobcentre Plus’s Chief Executive. A Jobcentre Plus Director responded saying that he found no evidence that Mrs U had been misdirected in July 2006. He made no reference to the allegation of misdirection in September 2006, despite Officer B’s submission to the investigation confirming that he discussed ‘linking’ with Mrs U and ‘at her request checked to see if it was more than 12 weeks since her previous … claim’. Officer A told us he was not asked to respond to Mrs U’s complaint.
What we investigated
We investigated whether Jobcentre Plus had misdirected Mrs U about when she could claim contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance, and how they had handled her complaint about that. As part of our investigation we interviewed Mrs U, and Officers A and B.
What our investigation found
We found that Officer A was unaware of the correct way to calculate the linking period and so probably had confirmed the wrong date to Mrs U. Officer B demonstrated at interview how he (incorrectly) calculated what he thought to be the correct date for her claim, and confirmed that, based on this calculation, he had wrongly told Mrs U that her claim would not link to her previous claim. Although this advice was given in good faith, these errors amount to maladministration.
One of the Principles of Good Administration is ‘Putting things right’. Although Mrs U identified to whom she had spoken and when, Jobcentre Plus did not properly investigate her claims. Their compensation decision did not refer to Officer B’s misdirection, and he was not asked about Mrs U’s complaint before that decision was made. Furthermore, Jobcentre Plus considered Officer A’s account of events, which was provided in relation to Mrs U’s July 2006 complaint, which was not about misdirection. The poor quality of Jobcentre Plus’s investigation led them to conclude there was no evidence of misdirection. Given that both Officers promptly admitted the probability of misdirection when we put Mrs U’s allegations to them, Jobcentre Plus’s failure to thoroughly investigate her complaint was maladministration.
If Mrs U had not been misdirected, she would have claimed from 15 September 2006, and received contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance for 182 days. Instead, she submitted her claim from the wrong date and it was refused. Jobcentre Plus’s failure to properly address Mrs U’s complaint meant that it took 18 months to resolve, resulting in inconvenience and further frustration for her.
We upheld Mrs U’s complaint and concluded our investigation in September 2008.
Outcome
As a result of our investigation Jobcentre Plus agreed to:
- pay Mrs U £1,493.70 (the amount of jobseeker’s allowance she would have been entitled to), plus interest;
- send her a written apology and pay her compensation of £200 for the inconvenience and frustration caused; and
- review their guidance to staff and report back on the steps taken to ensure staff understand properly how to apply the linking rules.
One of the Ombudsman’s Principles for Remedy is ‘Seeking continuous improvement’. This means using the lessons learnt from complaints to ensure that maladministration or poor service is not repeated. With this in mind, Jobcentre Plus agreed to review Mrs U’s case from a complaint handling point of view. Their processes in future will be subject to ‘stringent management checks at various stages of every investigation’. They agreed to report back to us on lessons learnt and the changes they will make to ensure complaints of this kind are fully investigated and addressed.
