8. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Mr I to understand his circumstances and the outcomes he wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look into.
9. DWP’s website from the time explains what a JSA applicant can do if they believe DWP has made a mistake when calculating their entitlement. The website says the applicant can appeal to a tribunal judge, who will hear the case and decide whether the calculation is correct. If the judge finds DWP got things wrong, they can ask it to remake the decision, replace its decision with their own and ask DWP to repay any lost benefit.
10. Mr I says he did declare all his savings when he first applied for JSA. He claims DWP did not take this declaration into account when deciding it had made the wrong calculation. He adds that he has multiple sclerosis and was taking anti depressant medication at the time and that with these factors combined, he struggled to fill in the form.
11. DWP sent four letters to Mr I in October 2013. It explained it had found he had more than £16,000 in savings, and this meant he was not entitled to JSA and had to pay the money back. It also set out how he could find more information on its decision, how to appeal its decision at tribunal and how to get help with doing so.
12. Based on these letters and the information available online at the time, we consider Mr I had the opportunity to ask a tribunal judge to look at how DWP made its calculations. If he had done so, then he could have asked the judge to account for the argument he has presented to us.
13. If the judge had upheld his appeal, then they could have asked DWP to remake the calculations correctly or pay the benefit directly to Mr I. This would have achieved the outcome he wants, so we consider there was a legal route available to him at the time and he knew about it. We have therefore looked at Mr I’s explanation of why he did not appeal at the time and whether this was reasonable.
14. Mr I told us he did not pursue the appeal route because he only discovered this was an option during the criminal trial in February 2015. By this point, the time limit to ask for a tribunal had passed. Mr I also says information about how savings affect JSA was not published online at the time. He says that meant he did not initially understand how the overpayment had arisen and so did not think to challenge it.
15. We have not looked at whether information about how savings affect JSA entitlement was available online at the time. Instead, we have looked at the letters DWP sent to Mr I. Having done this, we cannot agree he did not know about the tribunal or the reason for the overpayment. The letters clearly explained how he could challenge DWP’s decision through the appeal route. They also set out how overpayment happened and that he could contact DWP directly using the provided details if he wanted more information. The letters also advised him to approach Citizens Advice Bureau or an advocate if he wanted more help.
16. Challenging benefits decisions at tribunal is an established and accessible route. DWP told him about the help available and we cannot see how his multiple sclerosis and depression would be a significant barrier to accessing this help. A judge could also have considered these factors when hearing his case.
17. We understand how significantly Mr I’s life has been changed by what happened and the distress this has caused him. Having looked at his complaint, we cannot ignore that Mr I had the option to take a legal route to resolve matters at the time and it was reasonable for him to do this. While the option of a tribunal is no longer available to him due to the passage of time, that is not a reason for us to investigate now.