SIA licence payment
17. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so, we have found DWP has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.
18. There appears to be no dispute Mr B received the payment, renewed his SIA licence and gave the required evidence. He sent the latter to his work coach, as he was instructed to, seemingly a matter of days after receiving the payment.
19. Although Mr B had complied with his obligations, his evidence did not reach the relevant department. It meant Mr B’s account incorrectly looked as though he had received the payment, but there was no proof he had used it for the intended purpose. DWP says it wrote to Mr B on 17 August 2020 to ask for evidence of him renewing the licence. Mr B did not reply – he says this is because he did not receive the letter.
20. Because of this, DWP wrote to Mr B on 4 September 2020 to say he would need to repay the £190. It invited Mr B to contact it if he disagreed he had been overpaid or wanted more information about the matter.
21. It is important to note when overpayments are made, DWP can ask for these to be repaid. All concerned seem to agree the letter was sent because of an error on Mr B’s account.
22. Mr B contacted DWP on 8 September to confirm he had already given his work coach the evidence requested. He also explained a family member had mistakenly opened and read the letter. He said this had caused him significant distress as he considered the incorrect nature of the letter had ruined his reputation. Mr B said he felt DWP had falsely accused him of being ‘a liar…, a crook and a thief’ and asked for an apology and ‘substantial’ financial compensation.
23. Our principles say organisations should be honest and open when accounting for their decisions and actions and accept when things have gone wrong. They also say organisations should explain what went wrong and what they will do to put things right as quickly as possible.
24. Mr B’s work coach responded to his email the next day. He apologised for the distress DWP’s letter had caused Mr B and confirmed Mr B had indeed sent evidence of renewing his SIA licence. The work coach said he had contacted the relevant department to tell them this, as his original contact with it had been ‘lost in transit’, and Mr B’s account would be updated to show there was no overpayment in this regard. This response is in line with our principles as DWP put things right in terms of the missing evidence and explained, and apologised for, what happened.
25. Mr B replied to this email later that day. He thanked his work coach but said he still sought compensation for the injury to his feelings. DWP considered his claim but concluded its apology was appropriate recognition of its error. In its final response of 2 November 2020, DWP explained its National Special Payments Team had considered whether the complaint warranted financial compensation.
26. We consider this decision was made in accordance with DWP’s guidance.
27. Section 5 of the guidance explains there are three categories under which it could make a financial award. Categories one and two (loss of statutory entitlement and actual financial loss, respectively) do not apply here. It is category three – consolatory payments –Mr B’s claim falls into.
28. Section 5.9 of the guidance states a special payment may be considered under this category where a customer has suffered injustice as a result of a failing on DWP’s part.
29. DWP said it could not make a payment if its error had a minimal impact on its customer. It said it would make an award if errors it made were so severe or took place over such a protracted period it caused the customer clear difficulties in pursuing benefits or a justified complaint. DWP did not consider Mr B’s complaint met these criteria. It did, however, go on to offer Mr B a consolatory payment of £70. He rejected this offer.
30. Mr B was understandably distressed when DWP sent its letter of 4 September 2020. This contained incorrect information, and we understand how upsetting it must have been to have felt as though DWP was calling his honesty and integrity into question. Mr B’s family member opening his mail in error made this worse. The information in the letter was not directed to anyone other than Mr B, nor was it intended to be. DWP had correctly addressed the correspondence and can say it did not cause the letter to be opened by someone other than Mr B.
31. We consider DWP’s error had more of an impact than would otherwise have been the case had it not been for Mr B’s family member’s error. While we acknowledge the difficult position Mr B says this put him in, we cannot reasonably consider DWP to be responsible for this, as it was outside its control. It was also open to Mr B to clarify the situation with his family member, should he have felt the need to. This would likely have mitigated the impact of them reading his letter.
32. It is also important to note DWP’s letter did not accuse Mr B of being any of the things he felt it did (see an earlier section). We acknowledge Mr B felt the letter implied these things, but our view is this is not the case. It clearly invited contact from him if he did not agree with its overpayment statement. This provided the opportunity for discussion and for any error to be rectified. Additionally, DWP acted on Mr B’s contact with it about this quickly and appropriately.
33. Mr B has explained this matter has had a substantial adverse effect on his health. He has given evidence of prescribed medication to support this. Although it is clear from his evidence the medication is something his doctor considers he requires, we have seen no evidence to demonstrate this resulted from DWP’s error.
34. It is also important we consider whether the impact described is proportionate to the maladministration (fault) demonstrated. We are mindful DWP sent one letter which contained incorrect information, but it also explained how Mr B could contact it if he believed its records were incorrect. This was also the second letter DWP sent to Mr B. Although we acknowledge Mr B says he did not receive this, DWP could not reasonably have known this was the case. From its perspective, it had already given Mr B an opportunity to contact it to resolve the situation.
35. When Mr B did contact DWP, it resolved its error quickly. From our impartial perspective, we consider this single instance of maladministration would result in a relatively low-level impact. It was sorted out straight away and should reasonably have been the end of the matter. Much, if not most, of the impact Mr B describes resulted from his interpretation of a letter that, objectively, did not say what he believed it to say.
36. We have considered DWP’s guidance in reaching a decision about whether the financial award offered was appropriate.
37. Section 5.11 of DWP’s guidance explains a payment of this nature is usually in the region of £25 to £500, although they are usually at the lower end of the range. DWP offered Mr B a consolatory payment of £70, which he rejected.
38. When ICE considered the complaint, it decided a payment of £25 was appropriate recognition of DWP’s maladministration. Both of these sums are in line with DWP’s guidance for such payments. Even though Mr B did not accept the offers, we consider, together with the other action DWP took to put things right, they were enough to reasonably resolve this complaint. We have, therefore, decided to take no further action.
Customer service following PIP decision
39. Mr B called DWP on 23 November 2020 in response to its decision about his PIP application. He complains the staff member was rude, made racist comments and suggested he should harm himself.
40. ICE obtained recordings of the conversation in question. It set out the relevant parts of the call, which demonstrated the adviser did not act in the way Mr B believed she had. We saw no reason to obtain the call recording ourselves. In any event, it has likely been destroyed due to data retention policies.
41. We acknowledge Mr B left this call feeling upset and distressed and consider this might have affected his recollection of the conversation. However, given this was not reflective of what took place, there is no conflict or discrepancy for us to address. We have therefore decided not to consider this aspect of Mr B’s complaint further.
42. Following this call, Mr B called DWP again on 23 November. He complains he was in the queue waiting for an adviser to answer his call for around an hour before being disconnected. He complains it did this around ten minutes before the department was due to close and was contrary to the automated message during the call advising his call would be answered.
43. DWP explained to Mr B the call was disconnected after its phone line closed to incoming calls, and all agents engaged past that point had ended their calls. It apologised for this in its letter of 3 February 2021.
44. Mr B says the phone line was due to close at 6pm, with his call being disconnected at 5.50pm. ICE’s letter of 4 February 2022 explains he called 0800 121 4433. Having checked the GOV.UK page where details are given about contacting different departments, we can see this line is open Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm only. In view of this, we cannot conclude DWP ended the call before its PIP department closed for the day.
45. We acknowledge it must have been frustrating for Mr B to have his call disconnected after waiting on hold for a significant time. We can see how this would have been made worse by the automated system telling him his call would be answered. As DWP has explained, however, its system terminates all calls on hold once it gets past 5pm, and all members of staff logged in to receive calls end any conversations that were taking place when the department closed. We do not consider DWP was wrong in not answering a call almost an hour after its department had closed for the day. We, therefore, will not consider this element of the complaint further, particularly given DWP has already offered an apology in respect of this.
46. Mr B also complains DWP did not give enough time for him to give evidence in support of his request for an MR of its 17 November 2020 decision.
47. An MR can be requested if a claimant does not agree with a decision DWP has made about some types of benefits. PIP falls into this category.
48. Any evidence the claimant wants DWP to consider in conjunction with their MR should be given. The request (including evidence) should be given within a month unless there is a good reason this cannot be done.
49. Mr B submitted his request for an MR, including his supporting evidence, on 24 November 2020. DWP received this on 26 November. It started to consider this in January 2021, making attempts to call Mr B on 6 and 7 January before reaching its decision later on 7 January.
50. We accept Mr B felt like DWP did not give him enough time to respond to its calls. We do not agree, however, it failed to give him the opportunity to give evidence.
51. Mr B had sent his evidence to DWP in November 2020. The reason for its calls in January 2021 was to check he did not have anything else to send it. The month timescale given had elapsed by this time, and we have not seen anything to suggest Mr B did have anything further to add or was denied an opportunity to present this.
52. Again, although we acknowledge the upset and worry Mr B says this caused him, it does not appear there is any substantive issue here for us to consider further.