13. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and think the amount DWP has offered in respect of this is in line with the guidance and appropriately reflects what happened.
14. There is no dispute that DWP did not pay Mrs C’s DLA for eight years. All parties have accepted this.
15. Our Principles for Remedy say that ‘where maladministration or poor service has led to injustice or hardship, public bodies should try to offer a remedy that returns the complainant to the position they would have been in otherwise’.
16. DWP has complied with this. It paid Mrs C the full amount of DLA she would have received over the eight-year period if it had paid her as it should. It also paid her the interest she lost out on during this time for that sum.
17. The outstanding issue is the level of consolatory payment DWP has paid to Mrs C by way of apology for its errors.
18. DWP uses guidance ‘Financial redress for maladministration’ (the guidance) to decide on how much it should compensate people where this is warranted. This says that a consolatory payment can be made where its customer has ‘suffered injustice or hardship arising from maladministration’. It explains that payments for this usually range between £50 and £500, but that higher or lower sums might be considered appropriate.
19. The £500 DWP has offered to pay Mrs C is in line with its guidance. Mrs R is unhappy with this and considers a higher sum is more appropriate. This is because she believes her mum missed out on opportunities for more or better treatment as a result of not having the DLA money available.
20. We do not doubt that Mrs C’s cognitive ability was impaired during the eight years in question. Similarly, there is no doubt that DWP failed in its obligation to pay her the sum it told her it was paying her.
21. ICE told Mrs R that it would have expected Mrs C to have contacted DWP after her DLA was increased in 2018. We understand Mrs R’s upset at being told this – her mother was clearly not in a position to do this herself. We do not wish to add to this upset or try and suggest that anyone other than DWP caused the error, but do agree with what we think ICE was trying to say.
22. Our Principles say we must consider how much someone has contributed to their own injustice. We would expect a claimant of any kind of benefit or state payment to check their entitlement and that this matched the payment they were receiving. Mistakes do happen, and the claimant has a responsibility to ensure they raise any concerns with the organisation at the earliest opportunity.
23. In this case, it is clearly not fair to say that Mrs C contributed to her own injustice. But, as Mrs C was not in a position to manage her own affairs, it is reasonable to assume someone else was doing this on her behalf. Mrs R explains that she has Power of Attorney for her mother, but it is not clear when this started. Whether it was Mrs R or Mr C that had the ability to manage Mrs C’s affairs during the relevant time, it seems there was someone who had the opportunity to pick up on the error earlier than 2020.
24. As ICE said, DWP would have written to Mrs C annually about her DLA. It seems nobody took any action on this for her. Whilst DWP made an initial mistake in not starting DLA payments, unless and until the mistake was pointed out, it had no reason to suspect there was a problem. We have to conclude that DWP was not responsible for the entirety of the impact.
25. Nonetheless, we considered Mrs R’s explanation that, had Mrs C been in receipt of DLA as she was supposed to be, her stroke rehabilitation opportunities would have been increased. We do not have any evidence to support this statement, although we acknowledge the rationale for this. For a number of reasons, it would not be possible for us to say how the money would have been used, had it been available to her. And even if we could say that someone would have arranged additional care and treatment for her, it would be impossible for us to know whether that would have had a positive impact on Mrs C’s health.
26. That said, we accept that, at least hypothetically, there was a missed opportunity here for Mrs C to benefit from the money at a different time. It is evidently upsetting and frustrating for Mrs R to know that there was a potential missed opportunity for her mother.
27. Given what we have said about being unable to evidence the impact Mrs R claims, and not knowing how the money would have been spent, or whether things could have been different for Mrs C, we consider that it was appropriate for DWP to compensate her at the higher end of the usual range of payments. We do not think there were grounds for a higher consolatory payment, although we accept that Mrs R may well continue to disagree. Our decision should not detract from what went wrong, or how upsetting and frustrating it was to find out about this. Rather, it is a reflection of how much of an impact the mistake likely had.