ESA IR claim overpayment delay
15. We can see that in 2018, DWP decided Mr B was not entitled to ESA(IR) but did not notify him of the amount or that it was repayable until 7 October 2022. This is a 4-year delay.
16. Mr B took this decision to tribunal, which is the correct pathway to appeal. Our Office is unable to look at the entitlement calculation of benefits. We can consider the time it took DWP to notify Mr B of the overpayment. It is clear there was a 4-year delay in notifying Mr B, which is not in line with DWP’s charter commitment, ‘tell you what will happen next’ and our Principles of Good Administration, which say, ‘Public bodies should behave helpfully, dealing with people promptly, within reasonable timescales and within any published time limits.’
17. DWP recognised and apologised for its short comings and provided a remedy of £150. As such, we considered what impact was caused by its failure to act in line with the Charter. The error caused Mr B avoidable distress, once he learned of the amount and that it was repayable.
18. Mr B would like a larger financial remedy from DWP. We considered our Guidance on Financial Remedy and the evidence available to us. We agree Mr B should be offered a financial payment to put right the avoidable frustration and distress caused by the four-year delay. We feel the DWP’s apology and £150 is an appropriate action to remedy it’s mistake, in line with our financial remedy guidance and our Principles for Remedy.
19. We feel it would not be proportionate or in line with that guidance to recommend a larger financial remedy as Mr B wants; the overpayment is owed to the public purse. If the mistake had not occurred, Mr B would still have owed the tax, as he had capital and savings above the threshold of £16,000. What would have been different is the unexpected and unwelcome shock he received after a four-year gap. We consider the £150 recommended by DWP and the ICE now puts this right, for the reasons set out above.
Delays and failure to correspond
20. Mr B submitted an ESA IR request which was received by DWP on 24 August 2021.
21. The DMG, ‘Additional conditions for ESA(IR) 41091 – 41100’, says, ‘to be entitled to ESA(IR) a claimant must 1. have no income, or an income which does not exceed the applicable amount and 2. not have capital, or a prescribed part of capital, which exceeds the prescribed amount’. The DWP Charter states, ‘provide you with the correct decision, information or payment. We will deal with your request the first time you contact us, or as soon as we can’.
22. The DWP called Mr B on the same day and explained that he would need to provide evidence of his capital and savings from April 2020. This information was also put in a letter dated 28 January 2022 and 4 April 2022. This evidence would show whether Mr B’s earnings exceeded the prescribed amount. These actions are in line with the DMG and Charter. The evidence shows Mr B did not provide the information until July 2022. While we recognise Mr B’s view that the DWP failed to provide information needed in January and August 2022, we see it acted in line with guidance. Therefore, we will take no further action.
23. Mr B says DWP failed to respond in a timely matter to his MP. We can see that the MP contacted DWP to seek updates on the case on the 1 and 23 September 2022 but did not receive a response until the 15 November 2022.
24. This is a two-month delay and is not best practice by DWP as it falls short of its Charter and Our Principles of Good administration as mentioned above. While we consider the two-month delay would have caused Mr B short term frustration, we cannot see much else went wrong.
25. Therefore, in line with our Principles of Remedy, we would not expect DWP to provide financial redress. These says public bodies should, ‘ideally, return complainants and, where appropriate, others who have suffered injustice or hardship as a result of the same maladministration or poor service, to the position they were in before the maladministration or poor service took place’. ‘In many cases, an apology and explanation may be a sufficient and appropriate response’.
26. We feel the delay in DWP responding to Mr B’s MP is put right by DWP’s apology, and we will not consider this further.
The ICE’s remedy decision 27. Mr B complains that the ICE should have awarded him a financial remedy. The ICE said in its final report that Mr B’s complaints were justified, and it agreed that £150 and an apology from DWP puts its mistakes right.
28. The ‘How to bring a complaint to the Independent Case Examiner’ explains there are 3 outcomes. It says, ‘Justified: If the Independent Case Examiner finds maladministration but is satisfied that the business put matters right before you brought your complaint to us, they will find the complaint to be justified.’
29. We can see that the ICE acted in line with the above guidance and our Principles of Good Administration, which say ‘Public bodies should be open and truthful when accounting for their decisions and actions. They should state their criteria for decision making and give reasons for their decisions’. We can see it set these out in its report to Mr B.
30. We understand Mr B feels that the ICE should reimburse him for documents that were sent by post. We cannot see that the ICE agreed this prior to his investigation, so we would not expect it to do so.
31. As explained in our statement, £150 is an appropriate remedy in line with Our guidance on Financial Remedy and DWP’s ‘Financial redress for maladministration: staff guide’, which says ‘Consolatory payments usually range between £50 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.’ Therefore, we agree that DWP has done enough to put this right.
32. From the evidence available to us, the ICE acted in line with relevant guidance in considering the evidence relevant to the complaint and the guidance of the organisation. Therefore we will take no further action.