Issue 1 – information given by the jobcentre
18. 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 gathering the available evidence that will enable us to compare what should have happened with what did happen.
19. We have done that and consider there is insufficient evidence to enable us to investigate this issue and reach a finding on a balance of probabilities basis. As such, an investigation into this issue will not reach a satisfactory conclusion.
20. After retiring from his Civil Service career, Mr J went to his local DWP jobcentre in January 2016 to see what jobs were available. Mr J said he also wanted to check he was ‘in the right place’ with any benefit entitlement and his state pension.
21. Mr J understood he did not need to claim benefits (such as jobseekers allowance) because, given his private pension income, he would not qualify for a benefit payment. Mr J also knew that he did not need to claim benefits to receive NICs credits. This was because he had already established 43 qualifying years of NICs – more than the 35 years needed at that time for the maximum amount of state pension.
22. Mr J said the DWP adviser that he spoke to in January 2016 confirmed his understanding.
23. We explored with Mr J his recollection of that event and why he considered DWP had made a mistake. Mr J was aware from his Civil Service career that the DWP trains its frontline staff on forthcoming changes like the new State Pension. He said the adviser should have told him that the new State Pension was about to be introduced and this could affect him. Mr J also thought that the adviser should have signposted him to specialist advice (such as the DWP’s Pension Service).
24. Mr J’s account is not sufficiently clear on what information he gave about his circumstances to enable us to determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether DWP’s response was wrong. There are no other sources of evidence available that could give greater clarity on what happened.
25. For that reason, we have decided we should not investigate this issue further because any investigation would not reach a satisfactory conclusion.
Issue 2 – DWP’s communication of the new State Pension
26. Mr J considered DWP did not adequately publicise to people like him the state pension changes. Mr J told us he suffered the lost opportunity to have claimed job seekers allowance for the eight years before he reached state pension age. His purpose for making that claim would have been to receive NICs credits that would have maximised his state pension.
27. In March 2024, we published an investigation into complaints that the DWP had failed to provide accurate, adequate and timely information about areas of State Pension reform.
28. Among other things, we found that research showed too many people did not understand their own situations or how the new State Pension affected them personally. The gap between awareness and understanding was highlighted by the Work and Pensions Committee and the National Audit Office. We found DWP failed to use this research and feedback to improve its service and performance.
29. We did not find that the complainants in our investigation suffered an injustice because of failings in DWP’s communication. But we said it was possible others had lost opportunities to add qualifying years to their NICs record to improve their starting amount.
30. We asked Parliament to intervene and identify an appropriate remedy for those affected. We shared with Parliament what we thought that remedy may look like in terms of an acknowledgement, apology, service improvements, and financial remedy for anyone who can show they lost opportunities to add to their NICs record. The full findings of our investigation are available here.
31. The Government published its response to our investigation in December 2024. It did not accept our findings and recommendations for remedy in relation to communication about the new State Pension. The Government’s response is available here.
32. Mr J’s complaint is linked to the findings of that investigation into the communication of new State Pension reform. We have already investigated this issue and made findings about it. As such, we have decided that we should not investigate the issue again.
33. We appreciate that Mr J was surprised on reaching state pension age that he would not get the maximum amount of pension. We also recognise that he considers he lost the opportunity to improve his State Pension position. We hope Mr J finds the reasons for our decision above helpful in understanding why we have ended matters without further investigation.