Independent Case Examiner

3. Mr E complains DWP and ICE did not recommend sufficient financial remedy or service improvements after the DWP failed to follow the correct procedure in March 2023, when he said on the phone he was going to take his own life.

4. As a result, Mr E feels DWP and ICE have not fully recognised the impact of the errors and believes they have not done enough to minimise the risk of the mistakes happening again.

5. He also says he continues to feel anxious and depressed because of the whole process of what happened and, as a result, cannot live a normal life.

6. In coming to us, Mr E would like service improvements and increased financial compensation.

7. Mr E had claimed Employment Support Allowance (ESA) until his claim closed in November 2022. In January and February 2023, DWP Debt Management sent overpayment letters to Mr E for £6820.24.

8. At the beginning of March, Mr E made four calls to DWP on the same day to dispute the amount he owed. During the calls, Mr E told the advisors he had major depression, had dug himself into a hole, and was going to pay back the money he owed.

9. The DWP has a Six Point Plan that sets out the framework for managing suicide and self-harm declarations from customers, followed by an escalation route for cases where customers require advanced support when all other channels have been exhausted.

10. On the second call, Mr E told the advisor that he had lots of tablets in front of him and was ready to take these and needed someone who could help. The call ended shortly after this.

11. On the fourth call Mr E again told a further advisor that he had lots of tablets in front of him and was ready to take these and needed someone who could help. The agent spoke to their Welfare Team to relay the information, and it asked they transfer the call.

12. The Welfare Team had no record as to whether the agent successfully transferred the call to them or whether they invoked the Six Point Plan.

13. In mid-March, Mr E made a payment to clear the outstanding balance that he owed and called later the same day to make a new benefit claim. During the call Mr E stated he wanted to make a complaint about the agents he had previously spoken to when he called at the beginning of the month.

14. Two days later, a manager from DWP called Mr E about his complaint and apologised for any misinformation.

15. Mr E attended a Work Focused interview at the beginning of July, during which he told the member of staff that following the above calls he was no longer a danger to himself and was getting support from his GP.

16. Due to a complaint raised by Mr E’s MP at the end of July, a Complaints Resolution Manager (CRM) investigated the issues raised including a complaint about the above. The DWP Complaints Team provided its final response in September.

17. The DWP said it had traced and listened to the second call Mr E made in March, during which he had told the agents that he was feeling vulnerable, and had tablets in front of him. It explained the agent should have followed the process of asking risk assessment questions prior to transferring the call to its Welfare Team.

18. It explained it had completed the correct process of referring Mr E to its Welfare Team on the fourth call. It also apologised for any delay in responding to Mr Es complaint.

19. DWP awarded Mr E £200 to acknowledge the poor service it had identified which it paid to Mr E on the same day. It also signposted Mr E to ICE.

20. ICE received Mr E’s complaint in January 2024. To resolve his complaint, it recommended DWP apologise to Mr E and make an additional consolatory payment of £150. This was to reflect the time DWP took to investigate his complaint and for the distress caused to him because of the incorrect processes having been followed.

23. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint in more detail, we look at whether there are signs the organisation concerned has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen.

24. If what happened fell far short of what should have happened, we call this a failing. When we see indications of a failing, we next look at whether that failing had a negative impact on the person in question. If we think it did, we will go on to consider what, if anything, the organisation has done to try to put things right.

25. In cases such as this, where a second-tier complaint handler, such as ICE has reviewed the complaint, we first look to see if it has conducted its investigation properly, made fair and reasonable decisions and provided clear explanations. That is because we see no need to re-investigate a complaint that has already been investigated thoroughly and fairly.

26. Mr E complains he did not receive enough financial remedy when DWP and ICE investigated his concerns. Mr E says he believes the financial remedy offered should have been in in level four of our ‘Severity of Injustice Scale.’ This means Mr E believes ICE should have awarded a remedy between £1,250 and £3,700. Mr E had also expected ICE to have recommended the DWP to improve its service.

Relevant standards

27. Our complaint standards say an effective complaints system should make sure organisations take a thorough, proportionate and balanced look into the issues raised in a complaint. In this case, DWP should provide full accountability for mistakes identified.

28. Wherever possible, organisations should explain why things went wrong and identify suitable ways to put things right for service users. It should give meaningful and sincere apologies and explanations that openly reflect the impact on the service users concerned.

29. ICE explained that when Mr E called the DWP in March 2023, it was clear that service failure had occurred during a time when he was experiencing difficult circumstances because of being depressed, worried and distressed.

30. When ICE looks at a complaint, it considers what, if any, maladministration or service failure has occurred and then looks to see what the organisation concerned has done to put things right.

31. ICE explained that while it had seen DWP made a consolatory payment of £200 by way of apology for its service failures, it did not consider that to have been an adequate remedy given the situation.

32. It went on to say that, following the complaint to its office, ICE had recommended DWP offer an apology and a further £150 consolatory payment to recognise the distress Mr E experienced. ICE was satisfied that £350 was in line with its guidance and reflects the distress Mr E experienced during that period and the months that followed.

33. When considering financial recommendations, ICE does so in reference to DWP’s ‘Financial Redress for Maladministration: staff guide.’ That is separate from our own scale, which is what we use when making our own recommendations.

34. Section 5.13 of the guidance says, ‘consolatory payments usually range between £25 and £500, although lower and higher payments may be appropriate having considered the individual circumstances of a case.’ As such, ICE considers this range when it decides how much financial remedy to recommend.

35. While we recognise Mr E believes it should have awarded him a financial remedy that is much higher than the one ICE was happy with, this disagreement alone does not mean that ICE has got anything wrong.

36. In its role, ICE has the discretion to award the financial remedy it believes is enough to put things right, and it does so in line with DWP’s policy and other cases where it has awarded financial remedies. ICE will recommend a remedy it feels puts right the errors identified and the effect those errors have on the complainant.

37. ICE said it was satisfied with the £350 DWP offered.

38. Clearly, this was a really difficult period in Mr E’s life. He was unemployed and suffering with his mental wellbeing, which will have been compounded by DWP repeatedly asking him to repay a debit balance that he owed.

39. When considering all the evidence available to us, we can see ICE has considered the impact DWP’s errors had on Mr E and there is a difference in opinion on what the financial recommendation should look like.

40. For the emotional impact identified, ICE made an additional increased financial remedy as it was not satisfied DWP had made the offer in line with its policy for financial redress. It considered the relevant information, including the guidance, in reaching that view and so we are not critical of it.

41. We also cannot solely link the impact Mr E told us about given that he told the DWP agents he was already in a vulnerable position prior to speaking with them in March, and that he was no longer a risk and was receiving help from his GP in July.

42. As such, we find ICE’s recommendation is in line with guidance and will take no further action.

43. Mr E also complains that ICE did not recommend DWP make service improvements to prevent similar instances in the future.

44. ICE set out the responses DWP had sent to Mr E. In these DWP had explained that it had a Six Point Plan in place for calls received from vulnerable and suicidal customers. It apologised for staff not having directed Mr E to the appropriate place when he told the agent he was feeling vulnerable and had tablets in front of him.

45. It said the DWP had taken internal action with the agents concerned of which it could not share with Mr E. ICE was satisfied that this remedial action was appropriate alongside DWP’s financial payment.

46. We are therefore satisfied that ICE considered the action DWP had already taken to minimise the risk of this happening again. It worked in line with our Complaint Standards which say organisations should provide full accountability for mistakes identified, and give apologies and explanations based on the impact to the service user.

47. It is clear that DWP’s errors had a distressing impact on Mr E. Having to deal with these mistakes while he was already vulnerable must have been difficult.

48. We consider ICE appropriately weighed up what action DWP took to minimise the risk of a similar thing happening again. It did this in line with our Complaint Standards. For this, we do not intend to take any further action.

49. Given that a thorough and fair investigation has already taken place, we have decided not to investigate his complaint about DWP and ICE. We were sorry to hear of the circumstances surrounding the complaint. We acknowledge Mr E’s distress because of DWP repeatedly not having followed the correct procedure to handle his calls. This must have been very upsetting for him at such a difficult time.

1. We have carefully considered Mr E’s complaint about Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Independent Case Examiner (ICE). We have seen no indication that anything went wrong with how they investigated the complaint and in turn, with their conclusions and satisfaction of the consolatory offer totalling £350.

2. Given that a thorough and fair investigation has already taken place, we have decided not to investigate his complaint about DWP and ICE. We were sorry to hear of the circumstances surrounding the complaint. We acknowledge Mr E’s distress because of DWP repeatedly not having followed the correct procedure to handle his calls. This must have been very upsetting for him at such a difficult time.