DWP
Overseas medical treatment
14. When we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we have found DWP has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.
15. Mr N complains DWP stopped paying his benefits on several occasions when he was out of the country for extended periods receiving medical treatment. He says this is despite him being entitled to do this, and him having told DWP about it in advance.
16. As Mr N is aware, any decision about payment of benefits has its own specific course of appeal. This is initially via a Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) request and then Tribunal (First Tier followed by Upper Tier). The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances.
17. We have discussed this with Mr N, and he has confirmed he is not complaining about the decision itself, which he knows can be challenged as set out. He is unhappy with DWP’s failure to note his accounts to prevent this from reoccurring. He feels it should do this to stop any further suspensions being applied to his benefit payments when he travels as permitted.
18. In addition, Mr N complains that the form DWP says he must complete to tell it about his travel plans (known as a BF5 form) is not publicly available and has proved unworkable in practice.
19. It is not disputed that Mr N can travel overseas for medical treatment without it affecting payment of his benefits. The Universal Credit Regulations say UC can be continued for up to six months. The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations allow PIP to be paid for up to 26 weeks. The Employment and Support Allowance Regulations permit ESA to continue to be paid for the first 26 weeks of an absence that is not expected to last more than 52 weeks.
20. DWP explained that it did not suspend Mr N’s UC payments in view of overseas travel. It also confirmed it will place a note on his claim about him travelling for extended medical treatment for future reference.
21. DWP explained that the BF5 form is not required with respect to UC. It says that instead this is managed within its system by recording the claimant’s temporary absence, the reason for this and the expected return date within the ‘history’ section of their claim. DWP said it will then contact the claimant to confirm the UC payment can continue for up to six months providing they remain eligible for this during that time.
22. DWP said there is a note on Mr N’s account from 13 January 2026 which states he is again travelling abroad for medical treatment. It also says it has confirmed he can notify it of this, and provide any required evidence, via his UC journal.
23. As this aspect of Mr N’s complaint does not seem to relate to his UC claim, we will not address it further.
24. We have seen that a marker was applied to Mr N’s PIP file on 18 December 2025 after we made enquiries with DWP about whether this had already been done. The marker reflects that he travels overseas for extended periods for medical treatment. We are pleased that DWP has taken this action.
25. DWP said the last record of any such travel recorded on Mr N’s PIP account was between January and April 2022. It notes that all periods of suspension were challenged by Mr N in the appropriate manner and his payments were reinstated, and back paid, accordingly. DWP says if Mr N has travelled overseas for treatment since this time its PIP team has not been told about it and there has been no suspension of payments as a result.
26. No BF5 form is required to notify DWP of an absence from the UK in relation to PIP. DWP explained that any time spent overseas or in hospital just need to be brought to its attention. It says the easiest way to do this is by calling the PIP enquiry line, or in writing. There is no specific form to complete for this.
27. There seems to be no further action required in respect of PIP. Payment has been made and there is a note on the account as Mr N has requested. There is no reason to believe that, should Mr N travel overseas again for treatment, and notify DWP as he is required to (which is not via the complained about BF5 form) this scenario will occur again.
28. We acknowledge that DWP did not act in line with The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations when it suspended Mr N’s payments during his periods of overseas medical treatment. We note that this has since been remedied. We will return to consider the impact of DWP’s actions later.
29. Regarding his ESA payments, DWP suspended these as ICE detailed. The latest period of suspension ended in October 2022. As with the PIP suspension, this was resolved with payments being reinstated and backpay being provided. We acknowledge that DWP failed to comply with the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations in suspending Mr N’s ESA payments as it did.
30. When DWP rectified this suspension, as it explained in its November 2022 MR notice, it noted Mr N was due to travel overseas for 12 weeks in both January and September 2023. There does not seem to have been any suspension to Mr N’s ESA payments during this period. Because of this, and as ESA is no longer claimed, there does not need to be any further action taken in this regard.
31. The BF5 form does apply to ESA claims and absences. DWP explained that the form is a ‘Claiming Whilst you are Abroad’ form issued when a claimant tells it they will be absent from the UK for more than 28 days. It needs to be completed and returned with evidence from the medical practitioner providing the treatment to support the reason for the absence. The form is available on request either by phone or via a Jobcentre Plus.
32. DWP told us that Mr N spoke to one of its Vulnerable Customer Champions in 2022 and complained that the BF5 forms were not easily available. It sent Mr N two of these forms for future use. DWP said it also explained that if he did not have a form to send to it, it would be sufficient for him to send in the required information to demonstrate his period of absence being for medical reasons. We think this is reasonable in view of Mr N’s request to be able to notify DWP of such absences in an alternative manner. We note that as Mr N no longer receives ESA, this will not be an ongoing concern in any case.
33. DWP has acknowledged its failings in inappropriately suspending Mr N’s benefit payments on several occasions between 2019 and 2022. Not all of these are the result of his overseas medical treatment, but his prolonged visits abroad are relevant to them.
34. DWP’s ‘Financial Redress for Maladministration’ (the Guidance) says that when it gets things wrong it should accept responsibility and put things right. Part of putting things right could be making a payment to the affected person. This is what happened in Mr N’s case when DWP also apologised and reinstated his payments.
35. Mr N had incurred costs in having to return home from overseas on one occasion. This was not something he would have done if DWP had not made a mistake. It had told him he needed to be in the UK to resolve the issue and have his benefit payments started again. DWP has already accepted that this was not the case.
36. Section 5 of the Guidance says that a payment might be considered if a person incurs additional costs as a direct result of maladministration. This would help to return them to the position they would otherwise have been in. In this case, DWP refunded the cost of Mr N’s flights to and from the UK to deal with this issue. We find this to be in line with the Guidance.
37. Section 6 explains that a consolatory payment might be considered where DWP’s failings have caused injustice or hardship. It sets out that such payments usually range between £50 and £500. In this case, DWP paid Mr N £300 to reflect the impact of its errors. Again, this is in line with the Guidance.
38. We think that DWP has done enough to remedy the impact of its failings in this regard. It has addressed them as we would expect and as relevant guidance says it should. It has taken steps to prevent the issue occurring again, covered the costs Mr N incurred, apologised for its errors and made a consolatory payment of £300. We acknowledge that Mr N feels a substantial increase to this sum is warranted, however, he has based this on a scale which applies to employment tribunals and is therefore not relevant to this scenario.
39. We will therefore not consider this aspect of the complaint further.
Communication
40. While deciding whether we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we also look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.
41. Mr N complains that DWP has not implemented his request for his father to be copied in on all correspondence sent to him. He explained that his father was initially his appointee, meaning that Mr N’s benefits were paid into his father’s bank account. This is no longer necessary, but it remains that Mr N’s father needs to be copied into all correspondence DWP issued. He explained that this is because his brain injury affects his ability to communicate reliably, especially during periods of stress.
42. Our Principles of Good Administration (our Principles) say that public bodies should provide services that are easily accessible to their customers. They should behave helpfully and communicate effectively.
43. DWP explained that any correspondence relating to his UC claim is uploaded to Mr N’s customer journal. It says his father has access to this. There seems to be no issue to resolve in this regard and we think DWP has demonstrated compliance with our Principles by ensuring communication is easily accessible.
44. As Mr N no longer receives ESA, there seems to be no reason to expect any further correspondence about it. We will not consider this further as a result.
45. Regarding his PIP account, DWP says Mr N’s father has been an appointee on the account since November 2019. There was a short suspension of this in mid-2025 which DWP identified promptly and remedied when Mr N responded to its contact about this. There seems to have been no significant impact arising from this.
46. We welcome DWP’s actions here and find these to be in accordance with our Principles. DWP has behaved helpfully in adding Mr N’s father as an appointee and we have no reason to doubt that he will continue to be copied into correspondence about his PIP claim. Therefore, we will not consider this further.
Record keeping
47. Our Principles say that organisations should create and maintain reliable and usable records which reflect its activity.
48. Mr N complains that DWP has recorded incorrect information in his DWP records, including entries suggesting he had not told it he was out of the UK for medical treatment, and that he was married. He is concerned there is more than one file for him within DWP meaning inaccurate information is being carried forward.
49. As we explained in the background section of this document, Mr N has a different ‘file’ for each benefit he claims. They are dealt with by different departments within DWP and so any information needs to be given to each section. Having checked with DWP specifically about this issue, it has confirmed it holds one claim for each of Mr N’s benefits. We hope this helps reassure him that although DWP holds multiple files for him this is because there is one for each benefit he claims or has claimed historically.
50. Regarding the marriage claim, DWP has confirmed that none of Mr N’s records show he is, or was, married. There is no doubt that he has been questioned about this previously in terms of where he stays (and with whom) when he travels for medical care. There is a record of this as we would expect as it reflects it acting on its concerns and questioning Mr N accordingly. This does not seem to have occurred since 2021, and we have seen no evidence of DWP failing to comply with our Principles in this regard.
51. As we do not think there is an outstanding problem in this respect, we will not consider it further. We hope Mr N is reassured by our review of this matter.
Complaint handling
52. Mr N complains that DWP did not appropriately address the concerns he raised in his letter of 30 November 2022. He specifically refers to asking for a historic review of part of his benefit claims, dating back to 2000. He says his concern is that DWP did not treat this as a complaint about a potential long-term error but treated it as ‘an attempt to reopen past benefit decisions.’
53. It is our view that the letter of 30 November was not a formal complaint. The letter was written by Mr N’s father and was intended to form the basis of comments he told DWP he was likely to make during a planned phone conversation later that day.
54. While we acknowledge that the document details the concerns his father had at that point, we do not agree that this constituted Mr N submitting a complaint to DWP which would warrant a formal written response.
55. Our Principles say that actions should be proportionate, appropriate and fair. We find Mr N’s father’s contact with DWP reflected an agenda of the issues he wanted to raise, which we would expect it to try and resolve during the subsequent conversation. If that did not happen, we would expect Mr N or his father to have made that clear, at which point DWP would need to handle that as a complaint. We find DWP proportionately and appropriately handled this communication so there is no indication of a failing in DWP not treating this piece of correspondence as a complaint and responding to it as such. We will therefore not consider this aspect of the complaint further.
56. Mr N might find it helpful to know that, even if this had been a complaint to DWP, it would not have been able to do what he had asked. As Mr N is aware, all benefit decisions carry a right of appeal as set out within law. While we understand his approach to this matter as being concerns of an underlying problem, it remains that this is something that could only be addressed via the MR and Tribunal route, both of which have time limits.
ICE
57. As the second-tier organisation that considers complaints about DWP, ICE looked at Mr N’s complaint. He is dissatisfied with ICE’s review because it does not fully address his concerns and does not reach an appropriate conclusion in terms of the financial remedy awarded.
58. The UK Central Government Standards (the Standards) say that organisations should set out what happened and whether mistakes were made, provide a rationale for their decisions and identify appropriate ways to put things right.
59. Mr N complains that ICE, like DWP, did not treat his request for a historic benefit review as a complaint about a potential long-term error. We can see that ICE provided correct information, in line with our previous statement. ICE explained that this was something that could have been challenged at the time. Again, we note Mr N’s frustration with this, but neither party could undertake the review he wanted because there is a specific course of action for him to follow, as set out in the law, to raise such concerns. We do not think that ICE demonstrated any failing in this regard as a result.
60. Mr N explained that ICE reached conclusions about DWP’s actions which are not in line with either its own rules or its duties as set out in the Equality Act. He complains that ICE’s determination that DWP had demonstrated errors in its handling of his overseas treatment absences, but that it had done enough to remedy these, is not correct. He says there remains no clear marker on his records to reflect his travel is permitted and no reasonable adjustment to allow him to notify it of this in a way that takes account of his disability.
61. We have outlined what DWP has done in respect of these concerns. ICE’s report reflects that action. It complies with the Standards when it sets out what happened, acknowledges DWP’s mistakes and clearly sets out how it is accountable for these. We therefore do not think ICE has demonstrated any failings in this regard. Mr N might want to consider obtaining legal advice if he feels there has been a potential breach of the Equality Act in ICE’s actions. This is because specific claims of this nature are best considered by the courts.
62. Mr N feels that ICE has accepted what DWP told it about communicating with both him and his father ‘without fully recognising that there is a specific reasonable adjustment on record’ for this to happen. He complains that the adjustment has not been implemented and because ICE did not make sure this was being done, it has failed to apply the Equality Act appropriately.
63. Again, ICE outlined what DWP had done here. This is reflected by our own consideration of Mr N’s complaint. ICE reached a decision based on the information given to it. ICE was not given any evidence to support DWP having acted other than it says it has. Again, Mr N may want to consider legal advice regarding application of the Equality Act.
64. Mr N complains that he did not receive ICE’s May 2024 report on time because of an error it made in the process of issuing this. We have no doubt that this would have been frustrating and disappointing for Mr N. While we recognise this, we consider that ICE apologising and re-issuing its decision correctly is sufficient to put this right.
65. Mr N also complains about the level of consolatory payment ICE awarded him. It recommended DWP paid him a further £100, bringing the total to £400. It also explained that it had not seen any evidence to support Mr N’s claims regarding stress-related damage to his health.
66. He considers he should receive between £11,700 and £35,200 which he explains is the ‘middle Vento band’. As we have noted previously, this is not relevant to his complaint as it relates to awards made within employment tribunals. If Mr N seeks a payment for ‘discriminatory harm’ as he suggests, this is something he would need to obtain legal advice about.
67. ICE made an award in line with DWP’s ‘Financial Redress for Maladministration - A guide for special payment officers’. It increased the total consolatory payment to £400 which is in line with this guide. This says such payments ‘will usually range from £25 to £500’. Although larger payments may be made, this usually happened only in ‘novel and contentious’ situations. While not wishing to minimise the impact of DWP’s failings in Mr N’s case, we find the payment is appropriate and in line with the guidance.
68. We acknowledge that Mr N would like to receive an increased payment. This in and of itself does not mean that ICE got it wrong when it made the recommendation it did. As this is in line with the appropriate guidance, we find no error here and will therefore not consider the matter further.