UK Government Closed After Initial Enquiries Search on PHSO website

Department for Work and Pensions

P-004909 · Statement · Decision date: 25 February 2026 · View Department for Work and Pensions scorecard
Universal Credit Universal Credit
Complaint (AI summary)
Mrs B complained the DWP gave incorrect advice, failed to consider her vulnerabilities from past abuse and disability, and unfairly pursued her for a shared debt.
Outcome (AI summary)
The complaint was closed as it was outside the one-year time limit, and there were no strong reasons to waive the limit.

Full decision details

The Complaint

3. Mrs B complains about the actions of Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in 2020. She complains DWP offered her incorrect advice and failed to consider her specific vulnerabilities due to past domestic abuse, and disabilities.

4. She also complains the DWP did not ask her abuser to pay half of the historical shared claim debt and forced her to report her abuser to the police over this matter.

5. Mrs B says the impact of this is that she lost out on elements of benefits that she would have been entitled to. This caused her to suffer financial hardship. She also explains the DWP’s actions caused her extreme distress, making her feel emotionally unsafe, triggering memories and nightmares of acts of abuse.

6. Mrs B is seeking service improvements and financial remedy.

Findings

Mrs B’s complaint

9. The Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1967 (the Act) gives us the power to consider complaints. Section 6(3) of the Act says a person needs to make their complaint to an MP within a year of becoming aware of the problem. We cannot investigate complaints raised with an MP after one year, unless we can see there is good reason to do so. In considering these reasons, we look at whether there was any practical barrier, or any extenuating circumstances, that prevented someone making a complaint sooner.

10. We have explored this with Mrs B to understand the reasons she did not complain about the actions of DWP sooner. We can see that Mrs B first became aware she had reason to complain in June 2020, as this was when she became aware she was unhappy with DWP’s consideration of her vulnerabilities and debt payments.

11. While Mrs B did express her unhappiness with DWP’s actions in June 2020, August 2020 and again in December 2022, she did not contact an MP for assistance on the matter until January 2024. For Mrs B’s complaints to be in time she should have complained to her MP by June 2021. This means Mrs B’s complaint is outside of our time limit by two years and six months.

12. Where someone has not complained to an MP within 12 months, we consider the reasons why they were not able to do so. It is only if there are strong reasons to explain any delay that we are able to put the time limit to one side.

13. We have therefore considered Mrs B’s reasons as to why she was unable to bring her complaint to us sooner and the time it took her to complete the local resolution process. We can see that Mrs B first raised her concerns with DWP in July 2020. We can see DWP provided two responses to Mrs B’s complaint in 2020 and referred her to the ICE in its November 2020 response.

14. No further action was taken by Mrs B until she raised another complaint with DWP in December 2022 about an appointment her husband had with the Job Centre. DWP provided a response to Mrs B in January 2023 and referred her to the ICE. We understand Mrs B declined the ICE’s attempt at a resolution in December 2023. It provided its first response in January 2024 and, after a further complaint from Mrs B, its second response in August 2024.

15. We can see the second tier local resolution process took a considerable amount of time (December 2022 to August 2024). We can also see there was a gap between Mrs B’s first and second complaint, specifically between November 2020 and December 2022.

16. We enquired about the gap with Mrs B and why Mrs B did not raise her complaints with her MP sooner. Mrs B said her health had deteriorated after her car accident in November 2022, and due to her increased pain, she required more pain relief. Mrs B also said she began counselling and had started a new course at university. Mrs B also said she had not received confirmation her case had closed until she received a letter from the ICE.

17. We are very sorry to hear about Mrs B’s car accident and the difficulties she has faced over the years. We also want to acknowledge the distress she has experienced considering her history. We recognise how upsetting this must have been for Mrs B. What we must consider is whether there was a barrier to Mrs B pursuing the complaint with her MP and us.

18. We can see Mrs B was able to pursue a number of complaints with DWP and ICE with the assistance of her husband between 2020 and 2024. We also understand Mrs B was able to study, despite the difficulties she was facing. For this reason, we consider Mrs B was able to contact us and her MP sooner.

19. We understand Mrs B continued to raise complaints with DWP and ICE because she remained unhappy with its decision and was informed by DWP and ICE they would look into her concerns. We have thought carefully about this. We do ask that the local resolution process is exhausted before complainants bring their complaints to us but, we can see there were opportunities for Mrs B to complain to her MP earlier.

20. Having considered the evidence, it also seems Mrs B did not intend to pursue her original complaint further until she complained to DWP again in December 2022, when her husband had an interview with the Job Centre. This interview appears to have prompted Mrs B to raise her original concerns again.

21. Based on the information above, we have seen there were no barriers which prevented Mrs B from contacting her MP earlier. Therefore, we are not able to put the time limit aside and we will take no further action. We know this complaint means a great deal with Mrs B, so we hope we have clearly explained how we thought about what she has told us and how we reached our decision on this case.

Our Decision

1. We have carefully considered Mrs B’s complaint about Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). We are sorry to hear about the upset and frustration Mrs B has experienced during her contact with DWP. We would like to thank Mrs B for sharing the details of her concerns with us.

2. Based on the evidence available to us, we can see Mrs B’s complaint about DWP falls outside of our one-year time limit and we have not seen strong reasons for the delay that allow us to set the time limit to one side. This means we cannot consider these concerns further. We have explained how we reached this decision below.

Other Decisions About Department for Work and Pensions

P-005103 · 25 Mar 2026
Mrs C complains HMRC wrongly did not reinstate her tax credits from September 2021 to December 2024. Mrs C also …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-005044 · 17 Mar 2026
Mrs G complains the Department for Work and Pensions did not provide appropriate safeguarding for her daughter, Miss L.
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-005019 · 10 Mar 2026
Mr C complains that DWP failed to create and issue any documentation relating to his Universal Credit (UC) advance payment …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-004995 · 6 Mar 2026
Miss N complains about the service she received from DWP. Miss N complains DWP misinformed her about her State Pension …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-004985 · 5 Mar 2026
Miss M complains that DWP failed to provide relevant information and assistance when she told it her health problems meant …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
View all decisions for this organisation →