2. Mr U complains DWP applied sanctions to his UC claim in February 2019. He says, as a result, he did not receive UC for a year, which caused him severe financial hardship and distress.
3. Mr U also complains DWP staff spoke to him rudely during an appointment on 4 July 2019. He says this caused him distress.
4. Mr U seeks payment in recognition of the injustice suffered and an apology.
5. Mr U had been claiming UC for some time. This involved him completing job search requirements and attending regular appointments at his local job centre.
6. In February 2019, DWP decided to apply six sanctions to Mr U’s claim for the period between November 2018 and January 2019. This is because it believed he did not participate in an employment programme or satisfy work search requirements. As a result, Mr U did not receive the approximately £300 a month he would have had the sanctions not been in place. He applied for hardship payments, which he received. Mr U also submitted mandatory reconsiderations (a request for a decision to be looked at again) against the sanctions¬¬. DWP upheld its decisions to apply sanctions, but Mr U never took the matters to tribunal.
7. On 4 July 2019 Mr U attended an appointment at the job centre. He says during this appointment, the staff member said he did not need to be on benefits and was claiming them for no reason.
8. Sanctions remained on Mr U’s claim for some time. Later that year, he told DWP he had limited capability for work. DWP carried out an assessment on 11 December 2019. In January 2020, it decided Mr U had limited capability for work between 24 February 2019 and 23 December 2019. The sanctions on his claim were lifted, and DWP paid Mr U the money it had sanctioned over the previous few months. Mr U no longer needed to meet job search requirements.
Sanctions
11. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint if a person has (or had) the option to take legal action unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look into.
12. Mr U complains DWP applied sanctions to his UC claim in February 2019. The sanctions were applied because DWP believed Mr U failed to meet work search requirements or participate in an employment programme. Mr U requested mandatory reconsiderations of these decisions, but DWP did not change its position. Mr U felt DWP should not have imposed sanctions because he was unfit for work.
13. We asked Mr U if he appealed to tribunal following the mandatory reconsiderations. He confirmed he did not, and DWP also told us this did not happen. When Mr U complained to ICE about the sanctions, it said it could not consider the issues. This is because there was a right of appeal to tribunal at the time the matters happened.
14. Having considered the circumstances, our decision is the same as ICE’s. We cannot consider whether or not sanctions should have been applied to Mr U’s claim, as there is a legal appeal process for this. And Mr U should have followed that process.
15. DWP told Mr U he could request an appeal when his mandatory reconsiderations did not go in his favour, and Mr U did not exercise that right. He should have done this, as it is the only way he could have disputed the sanction. This cannot be done through the complaints process. It is unlikely Mr U will be able to take legal action now due to time limits, but this option was available at the time of the events.
16. We note DWP has since returned the money it sanctioned to Mr U, but this is because he had limited capability for work. That process is entirely separate from the sanction process.
Staff behaviour
17. Mr U complains DWP staff spoke to him rudely during an appointment on 4 July 2019. He says a staff member said he did not need to be on benefits and he was claiming them for no reason.
18. In response to Mr U’s complaint, DWP said it had spoken to the staff member who conducted the appointment. They denied making the comments to Mr U and said they always acted professionally and respectfully. DWP said Mr U did appear to be upset at the appointment, but this was not because of what staff said to him. This appeared to be because staff could not help him complete a form unrelated to DWP.
19. The staff member and Mr U gave completely different accounts of what happened during the appointment. We do not believe one account more than the other, but it would not be possible for us to say which one is accurate. That is not to downplay what Mr U is telling us, but it would not be possible for us to take an independent, robust view on the matter. There is no recording of the appointment or any documentation that supports either version of events. Due to this lack of evidence, we have decided not to take any further action. We appreciate that may be a difficult decision for Mr U.
1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has carefully considered Mr U’s complaint about the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). We consider Mr U could have taken legal action on the matter he has brought to us about sanctions (when a benefit is reduced or stopped) on his Universal Credit (UC) claim. We are unable to take a robust view on his concern about staff speaking to him rudely. We were sorry to hear of the events and the distress they caused Mr U.