Department for Work and Pensions

3. Mr R complains DWP incorrectly refused to:

• reimburse legal fees he incurred in pursuing a judicial review (JR) (a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body against it) regarding mandatory reconsideration (MR) requests (when someone disagrees with a decision about benefits, tax credits or child maintenance and asks for the decision to be looked at again) he says it failed to respond to, and • suitably compensate him for distress and lost time caused by unsuccessfully chasing these MRs over a five-year period.

4. Mr R says the £200 consolatory payment (a financial payment for non‐financial loss to those who have suffered an injustice as a result of maladministration (fault) by a public body) already offered does not go far enough to put right the distress and inconvenience he was caused by the events described above.

5. He wants DWP to compensate him £600 for his legal fees and to pay him more compensation for distress and inconvenience.

6. In 2015, Mr R was claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) (an unemployment benefit). DWP sanctioned (stopped) his JSA payments on four separate occasions in March, April and May that year. Mr R explains, starting shortly after these sanctions and with the assistance of his Member of Parliament (MP), he made repeated attempts over the next three years to appeal them through MR requests. He says DWP ignored all these requests.

7. In 2017, Mr R began JR proceedings against DWP on the basis of ‘unreasonable delay as a point of law’. It appears he did so because he and his MP considered DWP had failed to respond to any MR requests they had made up to that point. The start of JR proceedings triggered a letter to DWP about this.

8. It appears, on 13 June 2018, DWP addressed Mr R’s MR request of 16 May. It declined to consider it as it said Mr R had not made the request within 13 months of the date of the sanctions in question.

9. Mr R challenged this at a tribunal (a less formal court hearing) in February 2020. The judge found Mr R and his MP had made several attempts to request an MR from DWP between 2015 and 2017, and some of these requests were well within the time limit. The judge also found it probable the only reason DWP considered Mr R’s MR request in 2018 was because he had started JR proceedings. The judge told DWP to waive the time limit and carry out an MR for all four sanction decisions made in 2015.

10. On 2 March 2020, apparently because of the amount of time which had passed and the destruction of relevant records, DWP decided to allow Mr R’s appeals (without an MR) for all four sanctions decisions and paid him the £1,384.10 he had been denied from March to July 2015.

11. Mr R complained to DWP shortly after this, asking for reimbursement for the fees he had incurred through JR proceedings, compensation for distress, an apology and service improvements. DWP awarded him a £200 consolatory payment because it found evidence his MP had made MR requests it had not responded to.

12. DWP considered reimbursing Mr R’s legal fees, but it decided he could have first used its complaints process to resolve the issue without starting JR proceedings. DWP decided it was not liable to reimburse the legal fees because Mr R chose not to use the complaints process or ask for independent free advice such as from the Citizens Advice Bureau.

13. Mr R was unsatisfied with this decision as he wanted his legal fees reimbursed and more compensation. He complained to the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) (which reviews complaints about certain government organisations that deal with benefits, work and financial support) and it considered his complaint in February 2022. ICE could see no evidence Mr R requested MRs of the 2015 sanctions within the one-month time limit for doing so or that he gave evidence to DWP within the absolute time limit of 13 months, which explained why he had been unable to do so within the usual one-month limit. The only evidence it found was a letter to Mr R from his MP dated 23 December 2015, saying he had made attempts to request an MR.

14. Overall, ICE decided DWP had rejected the MR requests Mr R’s MP made on his behalf in 2015 because they were outside the time limit and failed to show a good reason for extending the time limit to 13 months.

15. ICE also decided it appeared DWP had rejected the MR requests on this basis and so this was not a maladministration (fault). It also decided not to recommend reimbursement of Mr R’s legal fees for the same reason DWP had done - because there were free options Mr R could have pursued before starting JR proceedings.

18. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint in more detail, we look at whether there are signs the organisation concerned has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. If what happened fell far short of what should have happened, we call this a failing.

19. When we see signs of a failing, we next look at whether that failing had a negative impact on the person in question. If we think it did, we will go on to consider what, if anything, the organisation has done to try to put things right.

20. Having done this, based on the evidence available, we consider DWP has already done enough to put right the impact of the things that went wrong.

Compensation

21. Mr R complains DWP incorrectly refused to provide more compensation (beyond the £200 already offered) for the stress and inconvenience caused by chasing MR requests, which DWP ignored, from 2015 to 2018.

22. DWP found there was evidence attempts had been made to request an MR in 2015 and 2017, and that it had failed to respond. It considered a £200 consolatory payment was sufficient to put right the impact of this.

23. Our principles say, when making decisions, public bodies ‘should follow their own policy and procedural guidance, whether published or internal’.

24. DWP guidance on consolatory payments as redress (compensation) for maladministration (fault) says: ‘Consolatory payments usually range between £25 and £500, although lower or higher payments may be appropriate having considered the individual circumstances of a case, in the context of the guiding principles.’

25. The guiding principles say, ‘Special payment decisions should have specific regard to:

• the length of time it has taken to resolve a complaint • the time and trouble the individual had to go to, in order to obtain appropriate redress.’

26. Mr R clearly considers he has spent a huge amount of time and effort trying to resolve things and have his MR requests considered. The guidance above seems to imply if he were able to show evidence of spending significant amounts of time and incurring serious inconvenience in resolving this issue, then DWP could consider a payment beyond the typical range above.

27. We have asked Mr R whether he can provide any evidence of conversations with his MP or of correspondence he sent to DWP asking to have his MR request considered. He has been unable to do so. Without any evidence of the attempts he says he made to request MRs, we have no way of determining how much time he spent trying to achieve this or the level of inconvenience and stress caused as a result.

28. We can see DWP saw evidence Mr R had made MR requests in the form of a letter to him from his MP in late December 2015, which it did not respond to. We can infer from this DWP saw evidence Mr R incurred some degree of inconvenience as a result of its maladministration (fault). The payment DWP offered is in the middle of the consolatory payment range recommended in its guidance. We have seen no signs Mr R gave evidence to DWP showing the inconvenience he incurred was significant or showing he spent huge amounts of time pursuing this, and nor has he been able to give us this evidence.

29. So, it does not appear DWP failed to consider evidence showing Mr R had been forced to put in the extraordinary amount of time and effort for which a higher payment should have been offered. For this reason, it seems DWP acted in line with its own guidance and our principles when it declined to increase the £200 consolatory payment.

30. On this basis, we will take no further action.

Legal fees

31. Mr R also complains DWP was wrong not to reimburse the legal fees he incurred from pursuing JR action. He considers this was the only route available to him to force DWP to respond to his MR requests.

32. DWP disagrees and considers he could have pursued free options first such as raising a complaint or seeking advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau. On this basis, it decided not to reimburse his fees.

33. DWP’s guidance on this says: ‘As a general rule, professional fees will only be reimbursed if the individual can demonstrate that:

• all reasonable attempts were made to engage with the complaint resolution process prior to engaging professional assistance • the issue would not have been resolved, within a reasonable time-scale, had the individual not sought professional assistance • the fees incurred are reasonable.’

34. We recognise Mr R feels starting JR proceedings was the only route available to him to have his MR requests considered and it seems he may have formed this belief based on his MP’s advice. But this does not mean DWP is responsible for reimbursing him the fees he incurred.

35. For DWP to reimburse the fees, all the conditions above have to be met. Unfortunately for Mr R, it does not appear they have been in his case. We have seen no evidence that he made any attempts to raise a complaint about ignored MR requests. Also, given the unpaid JSA totalled around £1,300 and typical JR fees can be much higher than this, it seems pursuing this type of legal action was a potentially disproportionate way to go about resolving this issue.

36. We recognise Mr R considers the opinion of the tribunal judge, who in February 2020 found it probable Mr R starting JR proceedings was the only reason DWP responded to his requests, is sufficient to demonstrate that he had no other route available. Unfortunately, we do not agree.

37. Mr R could have contacted Citizens Advice Bureau or raised a complaint before pursuing JR action, and we have seen no evidence he attempted either.

For this reason, it appears DWP acted in line with its own guidance and our principles when it declined to reimburse his fees. On this basis, we will take no further action.

1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has carefully considered Mr R’s complaint about the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). We recognise Mr R feels very strongly DWP should reimburse his legal fees and increase the amount of compensation it has offered.

2. But, based on the evidence available, we consider DWP has already given Mr R enough compensation to put right the impact of what went wrong. We also consider its decision not to reimburse Mr R’s legal fees is in line with relevant guidance and standards. So, we have decided not to consider these matters any further.