13. Mr U tells us the DWP misadvised him to claim UC in November 2017, and this move resulted in a loss of income. He said he is now financially worse off as a result.
14. The DWP said there is no evidence to indicate its staff misadvised Mr U. On the contrary, it said its staff warned him that he may be worse off if he moved from ESA to UC.
15. Our principles say public bodies should communicate effectively and ensure customers are clear about their entitlements.
16. Mr U’s submission to our Office said he was advised to claim UC by an ESA representative ‘sometime late in 2017’. He explains that when he then spoke with the DWP on 28 November he was given conflicting information and told that he should continue with his UC claim.
17. We also note Mr U told the DWP in a complaint letter dated 16 January 2018 that a person he regularly sees on the bus made him aware of UC. He said following this he read a few webpages about UC which he felt was very encouraging. He said with this in mind, he proceeded with his UC claim.
18. It is important to set out here that Mr U claimed UC on 21 November. We have reviewed all the evidence and cannot see any reference of a call, email or letter in which an ESA representative advised Mr U to claim UC prior to this date.
19. As such, we cannot see the DWP misadvised Mr U to claim UC. On balance, we are persuaded Mr U made his UC claim based on his own research.
20. The events Mr U describes in his complaint to our Office, i.e. the contact he had with the DWP on 27 and 28 November therefore occurred a week after he made his UC claim.
21. We have reviewed the notes of his meetings with the Jobcentre in November. We have also listened to the two calls he made to the ESA customer helpline and the UC customer helpline on 28 November.
22. There is no evidence to show a DWP staff member misadvised Mr U or gave conflicting information in any of these meetings or calls.
23. During the commitment meeting on 28 November, we can see the Jobcentre’s work coach gave Mr U details concerning his UC responsibilities. The work coach also appears to have warned Mr U that he may be worse off by voluntarily moving to UC, rather than waiting for the automatic migration to this benefit.
24. Mr U was in receipt of ESA at the time and UC was due to take over this benefit in a national phased migration. This means Mr U would automatically be migrated to UC in the coming years.
25. Mr U is reported to have been very insistent during the commitment meeting that he wanted to voluntarily move to UC despite the warnings he received from the work coach.
26. Mr U called the ESA customer helpline that same day. During this call, the ESA call handler gave similar advice. They explained to Mr U that they could not be sure he would receive the same amount of benefit if he voluntarily moved to UC. Mr U was adamant during this call that he wanted to move to UC despite the warnings he received.
27. Mr U then called the UC customer helpline and said he was concerned his UC claim had ‘broken down’. The UC call handler assured him his UC claim had been received.
28. They then discussed the ESA disability premiums he was in receipt of and whether these would be migrated over to his UC claim. The UC call handler noted that because he was in receipt of those premiums, they would award him an ‘enhanced rate’ of UC.
29. We can see DWP staff attempted to warn Mr U that a voluntary move to UC was not in his best interest.
30. We have seen no evidence Mr U wanted to cancel his UC claim following this advice, but even if he had, DWP staff could not have reverted to his original ESA entitlement. This is because Mr U had by that stage already applied for UC and his claim had been received.
31. The gov.uk information resource on UC says: ‘If you already get benefits, you should work out if you’ll be better off before you or your partner claim Universal Credit.
If you apply for Universal Credit those benefits might end and you will not be able to apply for them again, even if your application is not approved.’
32. A social entitlement benefit tribunal judge who considered a separate matter concerning Mr U’s UC claim confirmed in September 2018 that once he had made his UC claim, he could not then go back to ESA.
33. We cannot see the DWP did anything wrong. There is no evidence to suggest it misadvised Mr U to claim UC, and, following his application to UC, its staff tried to advise him of the risks surrounding this voluntary move.
34. While it would not have been possible for DWP staff to alter Mr U’s move to UC by the time he spoke with them on 28 November, they nonetheless correctly advised him of the risks associated with such a move. We see the DWP’s actions are in line with our Principles.
35. For the reasons set out above, we have decided to take no further action in Mr U’s complaint.
36. We appreciate Mr U continues to be upset and distressed by his change in benefit and recognise our decision will likely come as a disappointment. We hope our statement clearly sets out our decision and provides some clarity in these matters.