20. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint in more detail, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. We have done this and we cannot link the events complained about with the delay Mrs O experienced. Although we think DWP’s communication caused Mrs O some confusion, we believe it has already done enough to put this right.
January 2019 advice
21. Mrs O said Officer A told her she could have an additional heat pad added to the Adapt 620 chair but did not say she would need a further assessment. She eventually had a further WPA in April before the assessor could recommend a suitable chair. As such, she says Officer A caused a delay in her accessing appropriate support to return to work.
22. ATW funding is agreed in brackets. For example, costs of up to £60,000 can be agreed by a regional manager, but higher costs needs to be approved by a senior operations manager. ATW guidance says that if an applicant needs funding for additional equipment to support them to work, this is treated as a new application. However, flexibility exists to allow a small increase in support without the need for approval of a new business case. This allows increases in support of up to £500, as long as the total support is not more than the current funding bracket.
23. The guidance says that ATW should consider what the customer wants, especially if they have a clear idea about what they need to help them to work. However, a WPA can be arranged if appropriate. In other words, the customer, the employer and ATW work together to help the customer to work. This means that if Mrs O knew what she wanted, then a WPA would not have been necessary.
24. Mrs O told us she talked to Officer A about getting an additional heat pad for the chair and they suggested this could be added to the funding, but DWP has no records of this conversation. At the time of writing this report, we found heat pads for the chair were priced at £318. Assuming Mrs O’s account to be true, Officer A may have considered that this fell within the flexibility to make a small increase to the total cost, and therefore was straightforward to approve. We now know that this would not have been possible as the chair could not accommodate an additional heat pad. It is clear, however, that nobody knew this until Mrs O’s employer contacted the supplier.
25. When she brought her complaint to DWP and ICE, Mrs O provided records from her mobile phone showing when she had contacted this adviser’s direct line. Not all her calls connected, but the records included the following calls that did:
Date Length of call mm:ss 31 January 1:17 1 February 1:12 5 February 1:09 6 February 1:41 7 February 4:12 11 February 3:32 18 February 1:05 25 February 2:17 27 February 0:47 4 March 6:53 4 March 0:20 4 March 0:16 4 March 0:51 4 March 1:05 5 March 0:20 6 March 1:54 8 March 4:03 8 March 0:10 8 March 1:14 11 March 1:46 19 March 6:31 20 March 0:21
26. DWP found no contemporaneous records of the calls on its system and said calls made to advisers’ direct lines are not recorded. The shortest calls may indicate Mrs O left a voicemail. Nevertheless, it seems that Mrs O did speak to an adviser more than once.
27. DWP was unable to provide a record of Mrs O’s first complaint, but a manager rang her about this on 3 April, and followed up with three emails that day and the next setting out the sequence of events. There is no mention of Officer A’s involvement in these records.
28. ICE found no further evidence of the adviser’s involvement. However, Mrs O was able to provide us with an email Officer A sent her on 20 March, which said, ‘Your application is now being dealt with by another adviser. [Officer B] will now be taking your application forward and all enquiries must be dealt with by [them]. I’m afraid that calls are not recorded and I am sorry that you feel that you need to make a complaint. I do not have a record of any such email in either my inbox or sent items and I’m afraid that all emails are purged periodically. I discussed an additional heat pad with your manager and [they are] happy to accommodate that but [Officer B] would be taking this forward for you’.
29. We can also see that Mrs O’s manager emailed Officer A on 1 February saying Mrs O ‘advised yourself/Access to Work have recommended an additional heat pad to be included in the order for her chair. Upon speaking to the chair company they advise that the particular chair can only support one heat pad’. On 14 March the manager emailed Officers A and B, referencing a recent phone call between Officer A and a colleague at Mrs O’s work, where they discussed a potential further option for Mrs O.
30. The ATW manager who dealt with Mrs O’s first complaint talked about Officer A ‘going the extra mile’ for her to get her chair quickly. It is unclear if this refers to the December 2018 application, which they dealt with, or the new one.
31. We think this shows Officer A had some involvement with Mrs O’s claim after the December 2018 application was approved in January. It seems that at the very least they spoke with someone at Mrs O’s place of work about an additional heat pad. Although we cannot know for certain what they said in the 31 January onward calls with Mrs O, it appears she requested a second heat pad. It seems Officer A gave Mrs O the impression that they could arrange a further head pad for the recently agreed chair – even if that was not their intention. Until it was clear that a further heat pad could not be supplied, there was no reason to think a further WPA was needed.
32. On 5 February Mrs O’s request was allocated to Officer B to consider as a new application. This is in line with guidance and happened within a few days of the request, but Mrs O was unaware of this and the involvement of two officers appears to have led to some confusion.
33. Although we saw no signs of a delay caused by what Officer A may have said or done, we can see that it may have been confusing for Mrs O at that time. We considered whether DWP has taken steps to put this right.
34. Our Principles of Good Complaint Handling say that when things go wrong organisations should take steps to put them right. An appropriate response can include an apology, explanation and acknowledgement of responsibility. Organisations should learn from complaints, so that mistakes are not repeated.
35. As mentioned above, a manager contacted Mrs O about her complaint in early April. They provided an explanation of events up to that date.
36. Mrs O raised a formal complaint, sending several emails between late April and 1 May. She explained she felt that Officer A gave her the wrong information, providing the call records, and that there had been significant delays in the process. She said how this had affected her by delaying her return to work and placing her under stress.
37. A complaint manager responded on 3 May repeating the explanation of events. They said ‘reading this correspondence I can understand your frustration of the lack of contact or clarity of the process at a time when you needed it. This is wholly unacceptable and for this I apologise unreservedly. The Access to Work team takes this very seriously and these concerns have been addressed by the manager of the individual. We aim to ensure this experience is not repeated for you or any other Access to Work customer’.
38. This response is in line with our principles, as it includes an acknowledgement of the confusion caused by Officer A, an explanation of events, and a sincere apology. It also explains how it learned from her concerns by providing feedback to Officer A.
39. We cannot be sure of what Officer A told Mrs O about adding an extra heat pad to her already approved application. We can see that DWP has taken steps in line with our principles to put right any confusion. Therefore, we will not consider this aspect of Mrs O’s concerns any further. We will consider whether the confusion contributed to delays below.
Delays
40. Mrs O said that if DWP had not made mistakes and caused delays, she could have had the second WPA in February and returned to work that month. She did not return to work until 12 June. She says this affected her financially because she only received SSP while she was off work, instead of her full salary, which was much more. Mrs O told DWP that these events also affected her mental health, to the extent that she took an intentional overdose of medication.
41. DWP said that it did not identify any errors or unnecessary delays in the process, therefore it did not feel its actions caused any loss of income, and it refused Mrs O’s request for a special payment in this respect.
42. We considered the events after Mrs O signed and returned the acceptance of the January WPA on 25 January.
43. ATW guidance does not set out how quickly an application should be dealt with, however the DWP Customer Charter says that customers can expect requests to be dealt with immediately or as soon as it can.
44. Mrs O appears to have spoken briefly with Officer A on 31 January, or perhaps left a message. We know by 1 February they had received an email from Mrs O’s manager about adding an additional heat pad, and a further email was received on 4 February. The case was allocated to Officer B on 5 February, and they contacted the employer the same day. There does not appear to be any undue delay here. Officer B gave the employer two options to progress the application (because a second heat pad could not be added to the chair). They could speak to the supplier to find a chair that would suit Mrs O, or she could have a further WPA.
45. The same day, Mrs O’s manager forwarded an email to Officer B which said that it could fit a triple heat pad system if no massage system was required. Officer B spoke with the employer the next day and suggested they discuss this with Mrs O.
46. Two weeks later, on 20 February, the employer’s facilities manager contacted ATW to complain that Officer A had assured Mrs O that a second heat pad could be fitted to the recommended chair. At this point, Officer B had not introduced themself to Mrs O, so she may still have been unaware that Officer B was involved. However, her manager was aware Officer B was dealing with the request for an additional heat pad and had received instructions from Officer B on the next step.
47. An ATW manager contacted the facilities manager the next day and explained what was needed. They said the application would be open until 1 March to give them time to speak to Mrs O. They noted that there seemed to have been some miscommunication between the facilities manager and Mrs O’s manager. We thought about whether Officer A contributed to any potential delay in the employer responding at this point. Officer B had introduced themself to Mrs O’s manager and explained the next steps, so the employer should have been clear on who was handling the application and what they needed to do. If they were uncertain, it was open to them to contact Officer B or ATW to check. Certainly, by 21 February, the employer was clear on what was required.
48. Officer B closed the application on 5 March, as there was no reply from the employer. On 14 March, Mrs O’s manager emailed Officers A and B in reference to a conversation with Officer A. He asked about an alternative option of a separate heat pad which wrapped around the chair and how to use this. We note that Officer B’s role was not to provide this advice, as this is the assessor’s role. Officer B replied on 18 March. They said they thought Mrs O need a WPA as she did not know exactly what she wanted, and an assessor would be needed to recommend this. Both the applicant and the employer have to agree to a WPA, so ATW could not take any further action at this point.
49. On 1 April Mrs O spoke to Officer B. Officer B explained the application was allocated to them after her employer sent an email, adding that a further WPA would be needed as nobody knew which chair would meet Mrs O’s needs. The next day Mrs O emailed Officer B to request the WPA and Officer B emailed the manager, requesting he contact them urgently. Mrs O was copied into the email. The manager spoke to Officer B on 4 April and agreed to the WPA taking place. Officer B sent a referral to the WPA provider the same day so the WPA could be arranged.
50. Between 5 February and 4 April Officer B was unable to progress the application, as they were waiting for confirmation of either the equipment Mrs O wanted or that a WPA was required. It is not clear why Mrs O’s employer took so long to discuss Mrs O’s needs with her and respond to Officer B. The employer later made a complaint with ATW. They said the assessor had recommended a chair that could not be accessorised in the way that the assessor suggested. They did not complain they did not know what they needed to do. We consider the recommendation itself below. We saw no indication that ATW was responsible for any unreasonable delay between 5 February and 4 April.
51. The WPA provider’s contract with DWP states that it should aim to contact the customer within one working day of the referral. It should also send a Needs Assessment to DWP within eight working days of the referral in 90% of cases.
52. On 5 April (a Friday), Mrs O emailed Officer B to say that she did not feel able to complete a WPA as she had been having panic attacks. She said she would let them know when she was feeling better. It does not appear that Officer B did anything to put the WPA on hold, however, and it took place on 16 April (a Tuesday). Although there is no record, the WPA provider would have to contact Mrs O to agree a date for the WPA to take place. The assessor emailed their report to ATW two days later, which was one working day outside the contractual aim. The main change to the previous report was that the chair with three heat pads and a massage system was recommended.
53. Given that Mrs O had asked for the WPA to be put on hold, we do not think we can say there was an unreasonable delay between Mrs O requesting a WPA and the WPA provider issuing the Needs Assessment.
54. Officer B called Mrs O on 24 April to discuss the recommendations. We note that 19 to 22 April was the Easter bank holiday weekend that year, so this call took place two working days after the report was received. There is no indication of an unreasonable delay. There is however, a long gap between this conversation and her employer securing the chair on 12 June. Mrs O’s employer complained there was an error with the recommendation it received. We considered the reasons for this delay and whether it indicated any failings by DWP.
55. On 15 May the facilities manager emailed a complaint to ATW. Among other comments, they said:
• the employer received the report on 29 April (although at this time funding was not yet agreed as the forms needed to be signed), and requested a quotation from the supplier for the recommended chair • they asked Mrs O to tell them how she wanted the heat pads positioned • the facilities manager contacted the supplier on 14 May for the dimensions of the heat pads. They were told the supplier had contacted the chair’s manufacturer and learned it was not possible to accommodate the massage system and heat pads in the same chair, as there was not enough space for two distribution boxes.
56. The next day ATW spoke to the facilities manager and Mrs O about the complaint. They agreed that Officer B would send the recommendation back for rework. Officer B did so the same day and emailed Mrs O to confirm this had been done.
57. The next day the WPA provider emailed Officer B to explain it was not possible to source a chair with both heat pads and massage. It had asked several suppliers and they were all unwilling to place both systems in a chair, as it was a fire hazard. The WPA provider’s contract with DWP specifies that it should rework assessments within one working day of receiving a request, so it met this service standard. Officer B emailed Mrs O and her employer to pass this information on, explaining that if Mrs O could find a suitable chair, they could get quotes and re-apply for support. On 21 May Mrs O emailed her acceptance of the recommendations (including the recommended chair). Although the employer did not get the chair until 12 June, any delay after 21 May was not in ATW’s control.
58. The WPA provider’s assessor made a mistake when they recommended accessorising the chair with both massage system and heat pads. The retailer was not aware this could not be done until it asked its suppliers. Unfortunately, it seems that the ideal solution to enable Mrs O to work, a chair with both a massage function and several heat pads, was never possible.
59. Mrs O’s employer had already contacted the supplier for the quotation before they complained, and Mrs O ultimately accepted the chair recommendation. It is unclear if the WPA provider’s mistake caused any delay in getting the chair. The employer learned about the mistake while getting quotes and ATW went as far as it could to put this right within a day of learning about it. Even if the WPA provider had not made a mistake, the employer would still have got the quotes. We accept that the employer and Mrs O may have needed a few days extra to decide what to order. A quick review of suppliers’ websites suggests that lead times for this type of equipment often run to a few weeks. At worst, it appears that the WPA provider’s mistake could have caused a delay of a few days.
60. In summary, Officer A and Officer B firstly failed to make it clear who was dealing with the change to the application and caused Mrs O a great deal of confusion. However, this does not appear to have caused a delay, because Officer B was taking appropriate steps to progress the application, even before Mrs O became aware of their involvement. The longest gaps between events came when Officer B was waiting for Mrs O’s employer to let them know what they wanted to do. The WPA provider provided its report just one day outside the target. When it became clear the WPA provider’s recommended chair could not be accessorised with both heat pads and massage, it reported back to ATW quickly.
61. Our Principles for Remedy say that where maladministration (fault) or poor service has led to injustice or hardship, the public body responsible should take steps to give an appropriate and fair remedy.
62. We can see that it took more than four months after Mrs O raised her request for an extra heat pad for her to get a chair. We have no doubt that Mrs O was keen to get back to work, and she has told us about the financial and emotional impact these events had on her. The communication mistakes made by Officers A and B, and the recommendation mistake made by the WPA provider’s assessor do not appear to have contributed in any significant way to the timescale involved. Rather, the difficulty appears to have been that the ideal solution for Mrs O was simply not available. Therefore, the apology offered by DWP for the confusion appears to be an appropriate and proportionate remedy, in line with our principles.
63. We recognise that waiting so long to return to work was very difficult for Mrs O, and she has told us that, unfortunately, she later left her job as she was unable to carry on working. Our decision is not intended to take away from Mrs O’s experience. As we saw no signs of any service failure leading to the claimed delay, we have decided not to consider Mrs O’s concerns any further.