Department for Work and Pensions

6.Mr A is complaining to us about the DWP. Specifically, he tells us he is unhappy with the actions of the work provider, the Company, in May 2022. He tells us that he received incorrect advice in May 2022 and the Company did not investigate when he provided supporting information to demonstrate this. He tells us his adviser did not communicate with him when he requested support and did not explain to him what in-work support would be provided. He tells us he received inadequate and inaccurate information on 27 January 2023 about the time left on his work programme. In addition, he says that he was not offered any resolution in the 1 June 2023 final response, which he is unhappy about.

7.Mr A tells us the DWP’s actions have ‘taken a significant toll on my time, mental health and work’. He tells us he has had to ‘take a lot of time’ out of his day-to-day life to pursue his complaint, which has had an impact on his work and studies.

8.Mr A would like financial compensation of approximately £500.

9.This complaint has an extensive background, and in the interests of remaining concise and complaint-focused we have decided not to produce a detailed timeline of the events. This is because all the relevant parties involved are familiar with the events that have occurred.

10.Mr A is complaining to us about the actions of the DWP, and specifically a Third-Party Company (the Company), which the DWP has employed to help deliver the ‘Restart Scheme’ (the Scheme) across parts of London.

11.The Scheme is a government initiative that may provide up to 12 months of enhanced support for individuals who are receiving Job Seeker’s Allowance (JSA) and aims to help them to find a job in their area. The Scheme is tailored to the individual so that they can find employment quickly, but also a job role that is sustainable in the long term.

12.An individual’s placement on the Scheme is not affected if they are working more than 16 hours a week, although this does mean their JSA claim will end. The individual stays on the Scheme until they have completed 12 months, or their earnings reach the level at which the provider is paid a Job Outcome. If they reach this level before the end of the 12 months, then they are classed as completing the Scheme.

13.Mr A has raised several concerns about the Company and his dealings with it. He tells us that in 2022 he received incorrect advice and says it did not investigate when he raised concerns. He tells us his Scheme adviser did not communicate with him about different aspects of the Scheme, and he was given incorrect information about the time remaining on the Scheme in January 2023. He also says that the Company has admitted miscommunication with him in June 2023 but did not offer any resolution.

14.Mr A complained to the Company in April 2023, and it provided him with its response on 19 April 2023. The Company said it had investigated his concerns and believed it had addressed and resolved his complaint and would not be taking any further action. Mr A awas unhappy with this response and escalated the following day.

15.The Company provided him with another response on 15 May 2023. The Company apologised for its poor communication with him while he was on the Scheme and outlined service improvements they had introduced since his complaint to help improve communications. The Company explained that on this basis it was satisfied the complaint had been addressed and resolved.

16.The Company’s final response is dated 1 June 2023, and it reiterated the comments made in its previous responses. The Company affirmed that it was happy with the previous responses issued and said if Mr A remained dissatisfied, he could contact the Independent Case Examiner (ICE).

17.Mr A submitted a complaint to ICE on 19 May 2024. It stated that it was satisfied with the DWP and the Company’s investigation of the complaint and would not be taking any further action. Mr A and ICE corresponded further after it had issued its decision and, in a letter, dated 28 June 2024, it explained that its work had now ended and referred him to our Office, which it had also done in its May 2024 letter. Mr A brought his complaint to our Office shortly after in early July 2024.

The Company provided incorrect advice from May 2022 onwards and did not investigate his concerns fully 19.Mr A was referred to the Scheme on 8 April 2022 and attended his first appointment on 22 April 2022. As we know the Scheme may last up to 12 months, (although this may vary depending on an individual’s earnings) which means Mr A’s eligibility for the Scheme could potentially last until 8 April 2023.

20.Mr A informed the Scheme, via email, on 22 April 2022 that he had a place on a cybersecurity course from 16 May 2022, which was expected to last for 16 weeks. This means the course would end around 16 September 2022. Mr A’s contact with the Scheme during this period was ‘sporadic’ although the ICE report notes that he did submit reimbursement requests for costs related to his course, which were approved once receipts were produced.

21.The ICE report notes that Mr A did not have regular contact with the Scheme from April 2022 onwards. This was presumed to be because of his cybersecurity course which started in May 2022 and was expected to last until approximately mid-September 2022. This changed from November 2022 where we can see that Mr A contacted the Company to explain that he had a new job and wanted to know more about assistance it can offer in respect to that.

22.We can see from the information provided by Mr A, particularly in the responses from ICE and the Company, following his contact in November 2022, Mr A and the Company were in regular contact from November 2022 onwards.

23.Mr A has explained that he does not think the Company has considered his complaint fully. However, we can see, based on the information he has provided to us, that it responded to his complaint letters and correspondence. It provided him with three separate responses which are clear and outline what happened, offered apologies where necessary and explained what service changes the Company would introduce to prevent future such issues.

24.This is in line with our Principles of Good Complaint Handling, which states that, ‘public bodies should manage complaints properly, so customers’ concerns are dealt with appropriately’. In addition, our Principles state that public bodies should provide ‘fair and proportionate remedies’ where things have gone wrong.

25.We are satisfied that the Company has offered appropriate responses to Mr A and has investigated his concerns fully, in line with our Principles. Therefore, as we cannot see any indications of maladministration in respect of its investigation of the complaint, we will not be taking any further action on this part of the complaint.

26. Mr A has specifically raised concerns with how information he received in January 2023, and we will address this later in our statement in more detail.

The Company provided poor service when the Scheme advisor did not communicate with him and did not explain what support he was entitled to 27.Mr A has raised concerns that his advisor, we will refer to him as Mr B, did not provide him with information about what support he may be able to receive, and did not communicate with him in general.

28.This was addressed in the Company’s second complaint response, dated 15 May 2023. Having reviewed this letter we can see that the Company says it explained to Mr A, during a call on 11 January 2023, what in-work meant and what may be included.

29.The Company’s complaint response provided a detailed breakdown of different pieces of office equipment Mr A purchased while enrolled on the Scheme. The letter also explained what specific support and assistance participants on the Scheme could expect to receive from their advisors, this includes guidance and advice, access to advisors in other specialisms e.g. Housing Advisors, and online access to the Scheme’s library.

30.The complaint response also looked at Mr A’s concerns about Mr B and the lack of support he had provided. The Company said it had spoken with Mr B and reiterated the ‘importance of regular communication with his participants’. It went on to say that the Company wished to ‘apologise for this experience and we have used your case as an example of the importance of frequently being in contact with participants’.

31.The Company went on to say that Mr B ‘would like to apologise that the level of communication you received was not to the expected standards’. The Company response outlined the changes and service improvements it had introduced following Mr A’s complaint, and this includes asking all Performance Coaches to undertake more ‘regular observations’. More specifically, the Company said Mr B would be reviewing the Company’s processes in relation to in-work support.

32.Our Principles emphasise the importance that organisations take steps to put things right and seek continuous improvement. As noted above the Company has demonstrated that it has taken steps to do both, by offering a Company apology and a personal apology from Mr B. This is in addition to service improvements for all staff and also individual improvements for Mr B.

33.Our Principles state that, ‘In many cases, a prompt explanation and an apology will be a sufficient and appropriate response and will prevent the complaint escalating’. In addition to this, other appropriate responses from an organisation may include remedial action, including, ‘reviewing or changing a decision on the service given to an individual complainant; revising published material; revising procedures, policies or guidance to prevent the same thing happening again; training or supervising staff; or any combination of these’.

34.The Company has taken steps to correct the poor service Mr A received in this regard and we are satisfied that the actions taken, and apologies offered are reasonable and proportionate. We can see that the Company has taken steps to put right its errors, and we do not think any further actions are required. We will not be taking any further action in relation to this part of the complaint.

The Company miscommunicated with him on 27 January 2023 about his time remaining on the programme

35.Mr A tells us the Company did not offer him clear information about his time on the Scheme. The Scheme states that the one-year eligibility is only applicable to those who are unemployed. In Mr A’s case he joined the Scheme in April 2022 and informed the Company he had found a job in November 2022. This is seven months after he first joined.

36.The Company’s investigation showed that on Mr 27 January 2023, Mr B advised Mr A that the Scheme lasts 365 days. However, he did not explain that this is only in respect of individuals who do not find employment. As we know this was not the case for Mr A as he had successfully found employment in November 2022.

37.Moreover, the income threshold, which we have explained and referenced above, was met by Mr A on 26 January 2023. This means that not only was the information provided by Mr B on 27 January 2023 incorrect, but the process for completing the Scheme should also have been started as Mr A’s eligibility for the Scheme ran out on 26 January 2023.

38.The process for ending Mr A’s involvement on the Scheme was completed by the Company on 2 February 2023, after Mr A’s final expenses were processed on 31 January 2023. There is no dispute that the Company had provided Mr A with incorrect information on 27 January and to address this, the Company said it had spoken with Mr B. The Company reiterated that advisors like Mr B needed to review HMRC’s ‘Real Time’ information and it should have been explained to Mr A that he was no longer eligible for the Scheme.

39.The Company’s third response to Mr A, dated 1 June 2023, said that the Company had reviewed all the available records, and it agreed that Mr B’s contact with Mr A on 27 January, was ‘indeed miscommunication’. However, the Company stated that it did not believe this was anything other than human error on Mr B’s part.

40.The Company apologised for the miscommunication and explained that Mr A should have been exited from the Scheme on 26 January 2023 when he met the earning threshold, which is set by the DWP.

41.The ICE report, specifically paragraphs 29 and 30, addressed this matter and in response to the ICE investigation, the Company offered Mr A a consolatory payment of £50 in recognition of his miscommunication.

42.We have considered this, and we agree that the information Mr B provided on 27 January 2023 was clearly incorrect and that has been acknowledged and accepted by the Company. This is not in line with the DWP’s Customer Charter commitment to ‘provide you with the correct decision, information or payment’ and it clearly caused Mr A avoidable confusion and frustration.

43.Having thought carefully about this, we can see the apology and financial remedy provided is proportionate to put things right, in line with its ‘Financial Redress for Maladministration: Staff Guide’, which says where DWP has made mistakes it should ‘accept responsibility’ and ‘put things right’. The DWP’s ‘Staff Guide’ explains in Category 3, paragraphs 5.9 to 5.12 that how the DWP reaches its decision regarding consolatory payments.

44.We have compared the DWP’s guidance with our own Severity of Injustice scale (SOI). Our scale allows us to ensure the recommendations we make are consistent and transparent for everyone who uses our service. The figures included in the scale represent our judgement about the sorts of sums that are both appropriate and proportionate for us to recommend.

45.We would like to make it clear that we do not have standard amounts that we suggest for specific failings as these may impact the person affected differently in different circumstances. We consider the individual facts of a case in deciding what level of financial payment is appropriate to recommend.

46.After reviewing the documents, we think it likely that the impact on Mr A in this complaint, would likely to fall under Level 1 on our SOI scale. Level 1 refers to those cases where an individual has experienced ‘worry or inconvenience’. It is important to note that this worry ‘would typically arise from a single (one-off) incidence of maladministration or service failure, where the effect on the person complaining is of short duration’.

47.This is the case here as this part of the complaint is specifically about a one-off event on 27 January 2023. Therefore, as per our SOI scale, ‘We will usually consider an apology to be an appropriate remedy for these cases’. In Mr A’s case, he was offered an apology and a financial remedy, which exceeds our own SOI scale.

48.We have reviewed the responses received by the Company and ICE as well as the DWP Staff Guide and our own ‘Principles for Remedy’ which state that remedies offered should be ‘fair and reasonable’.

49.We have taken this into consideration when deciding if and we need to take any additional steps. We can see that the Company has apologised for the miscommunication and offered a financial remedy which is ‘proportionate’ and in line with the DWP’s ‘Staff Guide. We are satisfied that the DWP’s actions to remedy this matter are reasonable and we will not be taking any further action on this part of the complaint.

The Company failed to offer a resolution to him when it admitted it had miscommunicated with Mr A in its 1 June 2023 response

50.Mr A has expressed concern that the Company’s final response, dated 1 June 2023 did not offer him an appropriate resolution. We have reviewed all three responses from the Company and the ICE report.

51.We can see from the ICE report, that the Company has now offered a consolatory payment, which it did not do previously. Prior to the payment the Company and Mr B had both offered apologies to Mr A, and the Company had undertaken service changes to prevent future such occurrences.

52.We are satisfied that DWP had taken the necessary steps to remedy the complaint Mr A has brought. Moreover, the consolatory payment is within the parameters of the financial remedies which the DWP may offer. As explained above, the financial remedy offered to Mr A is in line with our SOI.

53.Therefore, taking all of the above into account, we are satisfied that the DWP has addressed Mr A’s complaint fully and has taken all o the necessary steps required to resolve this complaint. We cannot see any indications of maladministration in respect of the 1 June 2023 response.

54.We will not be taking any further action and wish Mr A all the best for the future.

1.We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint about the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

2.We can see from the correspondence that Mr A is unhappy with the responses he has received so far and believes he has not received a fair outcome to his concerns. We were sorry to hear these events have caused such frustration.

3.Having considered the evidence available to us, and the standards and guidance that set out how the DWP should carry out its work, we have decided to take no further action. This is because, with regards to some aspects of the complaint, we cannot see indications of maladministration. In relation to other parts of the complaint, we are satisfied that the DWP has taken steps to put things right. We have provided more information about this below.

4.The complaints we receive give us valuable insight into the organisations we investigate, so we would like to thank Mr A for sharing his experiences with us. It is important to acknowledge that where we have not identified service failings in relation to the concerns Mr A raised, it does not detract from his experience, nor the distress he feels.

5.We appreciate Mr A feels strongly about the complaint, and our statement below sets out the reasons for our decision.