You can contact me on: Our Reference: C2034991

Huma.lshaq@ombudsman.org.uk Your Reference:

SENSITIVE

Parliamentary
and Health Service
In Confidence
Mr~' . _.... LL
t

09 February 2018

Dear Mr ~__ q.

Your complaint about Jobcentre Plus

Thank you for taking the time to give us information about your complaint. I write with an
update on your complaint to us.

I wanted to let you know that your complaint has been passed to me to look at in more detail.
My role is to carry out an assessment of your complaint, which is where we decide whether
we can and should investigate, and then to investigate it if we decide to do so.

Using the information you have given us, my understanding of your case is as follows:

You state that Jobcentre Plus (JCP) failed to notify you of sanctions it made to your
Jobseeker's Allowance (National Insurance Credits only) claim.

You state that JCP failed to make an appropriate compensatory payment for its service
failures.

You state that the ICEreport does not address the issue of the failure to provide the
complete appeal bundle from HMCTS,in respect of an appeal you made in 2013.

You state that the final response expressed no records of events and the ICE report fails to
explain why.

You state that as a result of this you have been left distressed and the process has taken a
considerable amount of your time up. You would like a compensatory payment for potential
loss of earnings.

r"
~ ~ "'N
INVESTORS
PEOPLE
MiHbank Tower
MiUbank
London SW1P 4QP
Enquiries: 0345 015 4033
Fax: 0300 061 4000

Email: phso.enquiries@
ombudsman.org.uk

www.ombudsman,org.uk
SENSITIVE
We recognise that you have asked for changes to be made in the legislation and for criminal
sanctions to be placed upon JCP employees, however this is not an outcome we can achieve,
as it is not within our powers to change legislation or to become involved in the day to day
running of JCP.

What happens next?

We will now let Jobcentre Plus know that we plan to consider this complaint and will seek
further information from it.

Please let us know if you have any questions about what I have set out above. We will update
you regularly, and will contact you in the next four weeks to let you know what is happening.

Any questions?

If you have any questions or comments about our investigation and what it will cover, please
contact us on 0300061 4264 or email us at investigation.enquiries@ombudsman.org.uk.

Yours sincerely,

Huma Ishaq
Caseworker
 Page 1 of 2

From: "


" <



@gmail.com>

To: <huma.ishaq@ombudsman.org.uk>
Sent: 20 February 2018 17:18
Subject: PHSO Investigation - Reference: C2034991

Dear Ms Ishaq

Thank you for you letter dated 9 February 2018 in which you summarise the issues of my complaint.

I would just like to clarify one or two points in case there is any misunderstanding.

POINT 1

Firstly with regard to the following:

"You state that JCP failed to make an appropriate compensatory payment for its service failures."

Yes, but I would like to emphasise the amount of time and work it took initially to convince the department that
the gross injustice warranted a compensatory payment. Once a decision was made there was then a failure to
consider the amount in line with its own guidelines. The injustice warranted a referral to the Complaints,
Redress and Stewardship Team (CReST) to better reflect the amount of injustice. However, the payment was
not even the maximum that could have been awarded without referral to CReST even though the maximum
represented only a fraction of an amount that would realistically compensate for the overall injustice.

It should not have been necessary for me to request compensation, let alone spending so many hours
justifying why it was warranted and researching their policies. The guidance I referred to “Financial Redress
for Maladministration” states that ‘the appropriateness of making a payment should be routinely considered in
any attempt to rectify departmental maladministration, which may have resulted in a customer (or a third party)
experiencing injustice and/or hardship’.

POINT 2

Regarding the following:

"You state that the final response expressed no records of events and the ICE report fails to explain
why."

The heading to which this part of my complaint relates may be misleading and so I wish to clarify as follows:

The sub-headings (in brackets) under the main heading "NO RECORD OF EVENTS EXPRESSED IN ICE’s
REPORT" predominantly relate to the ICE's final response where it has been stated that the Grimsby
Jobcentre Plus had found no record (emails, letters, interviews etc). However, I have been able to confirm all
of the events because of records I hold.

POINT 3

Regarding the following:

"You state that as a result of this you have been left distressed and the process has taken a
considerable amount of your time up. You would like a compensatory payment for potential loss of
earnings."

That is an interpretation, but I expressed that it would be reasonable that an offer is made for compensation in

01/03/2018
 Page 2 of 2

recognition of the fact that the 'considerable service failures' were much more serious than what the ICE
report appeared to consider them.

Regarding 'compensatory payment for potential loss of earnings', I expressed in my complaint that 'if it could
be quantified in monetary terms, the cost (including potential loss of earnings) if aggregated over the years for
the gross inconvenience of having to deal with the maladministration would amount to thousands of pounds'.
However, I was realistic and acknowledged that I would not expect an amount to fully compensate for the
overall injustice. That would be ideal though if it is achievable.

POINT 4

Regarding the following:

"We recognise that you have asked for changes to be made in the legislation and for criminal sanctions
to be placed upon JCP employees, however, this is not an outcome we can achieve, as it is not within
our powers to change legislation or become involved in the day to day running of JCP."

You may appreciate that it is difficult for me to accept that no lessons will be learned from the injustice I have
experienced and the time and effort I have put into raising these matters will not in any way benefit future
victims who will have their lives ruined in the same way.

I appreciate the Ombudsman will not have the power to change legislation or become involved in the day to
day running of JCP but my expectations were for the matters raised in my complaint to be brought to the
attention of the government and relevant public bodies and recommendations made.

POINT 5

Please also see additional issues quoted from my complaint that I would like to highlight:

"..the ICE’s investigation has discovered to my detriment another instance of my claim being closed in May
2015 without being notified. The implications of this are that I no longer have the full qualifying years Pension
contributions because for full New State Pension I would need 35 qualifying years rather than 30.

"I was not obliged, as a NI Credits only claimant, to engage or participate with the Work Programme and
therefore should not have been referred to a Decision Maker for consideration of a sanction decision.
However, according to the ICE’s investigation, my claim had been incorrectly closed on two occasions for
failing to attend Work Programme appointments."

Yours sincerely

.

01/03/2018
You can contact me on: Our Reference: C2034991
Huma.lshaq@ombudsman.org.uk Your Reference:

SENSITIVE

Parliamentary
and Health Service
In Confidence
Mr ~'_~' ,..".
lt

26 February 2018

Dear Mr ~.' q.

Your complaint about Jobcentre Plus

We have completed our consideration of your complaint about Jobcentre Plus (JCP) and I am
writing to tell you the outcome. In order to reach this decision we reviewed the information
you provided and obtained some information from JCP. Having done this, we have decided
not to consider your complaint further. We will explain our reasons for this below.

Your complaint

You state that JCP failed to notify you of sanctions it made to your Jobseeker's Allowance
(National Insurance Credits only) claim.

You state that JCP failed to recognise and make an appropriate compensatory payment for its
service failures.

You state that the ICE report does not address the issue of the failure to provide the
complete appeal bundle from HMCTS, in respect of an appeal you made in 2013.

You state that the final response expressed no records of events and the ICE report fails to
explain why.

You state that as a result of this you have been left distressed and the process has taken a
considerable amount of your time up. You would like a compensatory payment for potential
loss of earnings.

MiHbankTower Enquiries:0345 0154033

r'INVESTORS MiUbank Fax: 0300 061 4000
~ "IN PEOPLE
"..... London SW1P 4QP
Email:phso.enquiries@
ombudsman.org.uk

SENSITIVE www.ombudsman.org.uk
You also express that it would be reasonable that an offer is made for compensation in
recognition of the fact that the 'considerabLe service failures' were much more serious than
what the ICE report appeared to consider them.

Reason for our decision

ConsoLatory payment

In recognition of the delays, poor service and confusing information provided, as well as
incorrect decisions made on your case, a consolatory payment of £350 was issued to you. A
further consolatory payment of £50 was issued in response to the delay of an outstanding
issue regarding the two missing NIC for the 2012/13 tax year.

Although there were failures on behalf of JCP, it apologised in response to these errors and
has provided consolatory payments amounting to £400, which we consider is appropriate
redress in line with FinanciaL Redress for MaLadministration Guidelines - SpeciaL Payments
Scheme: Policy and Guiding PrincipLes (April 2012). This sets out that the financial redress
payment range varies from £25 to £500.1

We note that you state once a decision was made there was then a failure to consider the
amount in line with JCP's own guidelines and that you had to request compensation. As we
have noted above we consider that the amount offered is in line with JCP's own guidance and
we have also referred to previous cases we have considered where failings have been
identified and where financial redress has been paid, in order to ensure that the payments
you have received are consistent with other cases we have seen. As a result we are satisfied
that JCP have provided you with an appropriate redress of £400.

Failure to address issue reLating to JCP not providing compLete appeaL bundLe to HMCTS

The ICE report explained that there is 'no evidence suggesting that onLy 1 page of the appeaL
form and that there is no evidence that the GL24 form was not subsequentLy referred to
HMCTS'.

You opposed the decision to not uphold this part of your complaint on the basis of insufficient
evidence. On 30 March 2017, the customer care team considered your claim and stated that
although it is not with in their remit to comment on HMCTSdecisions, they will still provide
an explanation. It was explained that the appeal had been struck out due to the fact that you
did not supply all of the information that would be required for HMCTSto take the appeal
further, and not because you did not sign the appeal form.

lhttps:/ Iwww.gov.uk/ governmentluploads/system/uploads/attachment data/file/671381/fi

nancial- redress-for- maladmi nistration -dwp-staff -guide. pdf)
We consider that ICE have investigated this complaint thoroughly and fairly, basing their
decisions on available facts and evidence, which is in line with our Principles of Good
Complaint Handling, which states' Public bodies should do the following ... Investigate
complaints thoroughly and fairly, basing their decisions on the available facts and
evidence ...' For further information please visit www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/our-
pri nci ples/ pri nci ples-good-com plai nt -handling

Failure to explain why there was a lack of records

The ICE report explains that JCP have limited documentary evidence due to their data
retention policy under the DPA 1998 and provide an explanation of this policy. We consider
that the ICE report has provided a clear and transparent account of JCP's data retention
policy and explanation for why the evidence was not available to them.

Whilst we appreciate that this may be frustrating for you, we consider both ICE's explanation
of the lack of records, as well as the conclusions drawn from the evidence available, are
reasonable.

You no longer have the full qualifying years Pension contributions because for full New State
Pension you would need 35 qualifying years rather than 30.

We note that your NI record has been updated and you were awarded 52 credits for the 2010-
2011 tax year, 52 credits for 2011-2012,50 for 2012-2013 and 52 for 2013-2014. You further
submitted an appeal as you had two missing credits for the 2012-2013 tax year. However, JCP
confirmed that the error had been corrected and that your NI record had been adjusted
accordingly, thus you now have 52 credits for the 2012-2013 tax year. You can get more State
Pension by adding more qualifying years to your National Insurance record after 5 April 2016.
You can do this until you reach the full new State Pension amount or reach State Pension age
- whichever is first, for further information see 'Your State Pension Explained'
https: //www.gov.uk/governmentluploads/system/uploads/ attachment data/file/661459/yo
ur-state- pension -explained .pdf

Conclusion

In summary, we have decided that we will not take any more action on your complaint. I
hope I have explained the thorough consideration we have given to our decision and clearly
outlined the reasons for it.

If you have any questions then please contact me using the details given at the top of this
letter. Alternatively, you can contact our Customer Care Team if you have any feedback
about our service or decision. Please call us on 0345 015 4033 (select option 3) or by emaU
at feedbackaboutus@ombudsman.org.uk

Our independent research company may also invite you to take part in a survey to help us
improve our services. If you would prefer not to take part please call us on 0300 061 4222, or
email customersurvey@ombudsman.org. uk

If you have already told us that you do not want to take part, then you do not need to tell us
again.

Information passed to and collected by the research company is kept in the strictest
confidence and used for research purposes only.

Yours sincerely

Huma Ishaq
Caseworker