Mr K felt bullied and discriminated against, to the extent that his health suffered, after a catalogue of errors and delays by Jobcentre Plus over a prolonged period.
Background
Mr K – a chemical engineer – was made redundant and claimed jobseeker’s allowance. In July 2006 his jobseeker’s agreement was reviewed by the jobcentre. Mr K disagreed with their proposal that he should look for general office work and other work for which he felt over-qualified. Jobcentre Plus suspended his benefits and referred his case to a decision maker, on the grounds that he had refused to sign a jobseeker’s agreement. (The correct ground to use was that there was a doubt about whether he satisfied the conditions for entitlement to benefit. Jobcentre Plus continued to work on the basis of that misunderstanding for a long time.) Mr K then complained to Jobcentre Plus that he had felt humiliated and distressed at the interviews, and that staff were racially discriminating against him.
While waiting for a decision about his benefit entitlement, Mr K applied for a hardship payment. Jobcentre Plus did not pay him, on the basis that he had no underlying entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance. That was wrong – his entitlement continued pending a formal determination. Nor did Jobcentre Plus tell Mr K of their decision.
In September 2006 a decision maker determined that Mr K’s jobseeker’s agreement should be amended as proposed in July. Jobcentre Plus did not explain that decision properly to Mr K, leaving him unsure what had been decided. In October a decision maker accepted that ‘chemical engineer’ should be added to Mr K’s jobseeker’s agreement. In November part of Mr K’s computer record was removed from Jobcentre Plus’s computer system because they noticed that they had continued to meet Mr K’s housing costs, while the rest of his benefit was suspended. Mr K continued to pursue his complaint through Jobcentre Plus’s internal complaints process; the Chief Executive told Mr K that she was satisfied that his complaints had been properly investigated.
In January 2007 Jobcentre Plus finally processed Mr K’s appeal and sent it to the Tribunals Service to be listed for a hearing. Also in January Mr K made a fresh complaint; he was particularly concerned that his housing costs had not been paid since November 2006, and that he had not been told this would happen. In a subsequent letter, Mr K complained about the delay in dealing with his appeal and said he was suffering hardship and distress. He sent a further letter of complaint in February 2007. The District Manager replied rejecting Mr K’s complaints. When Mr K’s appeal was heard in March, the tribunal found in his favour. Jobcentre Plus received a copy of that decision on 7 March but took no action until 27 May, when prompted by Mr K. Two days later Mr K asked for a crisis loan, but was told that he could not apply, because his benefits claim had been closed. Mr K then requested an interim payment of jobseeker’s allowance; that request was not processed.
Jobcentre Plus decided that, before they would implement the tribunal’s decision, they needed evidence of how he had supported himself while they had not been paying him. As well as asking Mr K for that information, they told him his appeal had been struck out. On 8 June 2007 the District Manager replied to three of Mr K’s complaints. She told Mr K that he had been asked to attend an appointment in June to ‘complete the action necessary to satisfy the eligibility conditions for jobseeker’s allowance’. She said that his hardship application had been refused, and that a decision notice had been sent to him in August 2006.
Mr K then applied for a budgeting loan, which was refused.
Mr K attended the June 2007 meeting and was again asked to sign a jobseeker’s agreement resembling the July 2006 one. When he said he wanted to take legal advice before signing it, Jobcentre Plus again referred his case to the decision makers. They also refused a further application for a crisis loan. In July 2007 Mr K signed the proposed jobseeker’s agreement, but also asked the decision maker to review her decision. Also in July Jobcentre Plus reviewed, but did not revise, their June crisis loan decision. Jobcentre Plus finally paid Mr K his benefit and housing costs arrears in August.
What we investigated
We investigated Mr K’s complaints that Jobcentre Plus had suspended his benefits unreasonably; not notified him of their decisions; delayed processing his appeal and implementing the decision; and had not told him that his housing payments would stop. We also investigated his allegation that officials were racially prejudiced against him, and that the responses to his complaints were unsatisfactory.
What our investigation found
It was reasonable for Jobcentre Plus to have asked Mr K to broaden his jobseeking goals, but they did not handle the discussion well. It was appropriate for Mr K’s case to be referred to a decision maker, but the referral was made on the wrong grounds and this error was never fully corrected. Jobcentre Plus also delayed reaching an initial decision on the suspension of Mr K’s benefit, and did not communicate that decision properly.
Of all the decisions taken in respect of Mr K’s applications for jobseeker’s allowance, social fund payments, jobseeker’s hardship payment and interim payments, Jobcentre Plus correctly notified him of a properly made decision just twice. There were also instances where they said decisions had not been taken, when they had. More fundamentally, Jobcentre Plus fell a long way short of ‘getting it right’, on some occasions even failing to take the decisions properly. The decisions to reject Mr K’s hardship payment application, his social fund claims, and the second suspension of his benefit were perverse.
Jobcentre Plus’s processing of Mr K’s appeal was so poor that it amounted to maladministration. They took far too long to make an initial determination on his jobseeker’s agreement. They also took too long to take action after Mr K’s successful appeal. Rather than putting his claim back into payment immediately, Jobcentre Plus launched an ‘investigation’ into Mr K’s circumstances. Despite Mr K eventually complying with their demands for information, Jobcentre Plus continued to withhold his benefit, and no real work was undertaken to put his benefit into payment until 20 August 2007.
Turning to Mr K’s housing costs, Jobcentre Plus were aware that a system fault had allowed his housing costs to continue in payment erroneously. They should have realised that that error had led Mr K to think that his housing costs would continue during the suspension of his benefits. We saw no evidence that Mr K was told the conditions for receiving housing costs.
Mr K’s serious complaint about racial discrimination merited thorough investigation by Jobcentre Plus. Jobcentre Plus did not do that. While we could not say why Mr K was treated so badly, he certainly did not receive the service that he should have had. Officials somehow developed a collective negative mindset towards Mr K, which prevented them from objectively assessing his case. That is a long way from saying that Mr K was discriminated against because of his race, or for any other specific motive, but we could entirely understand why he felt bullied and disadvantaged.
Jobcentre Plus’s handling of Mr K’s complaints was abysmal. A number of their replies contained incorrect information and, as time went on, they became less prompt and more inaccurate. Some letters went unanswered, and many replies did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in responding. Jobcentre Plus did not investigate Mr K’s complaint thoroughly, despite the assurances of increasingly senior staff that they had done so. Indeed, Jobcentre Plus could not demonstrate that they had ever looked critically at the evidence and asked themselves if Mr K had a valid complaint.
Consequences
We were satisfied that, as a result of Jobcentre Plus’s maladministration, Mr K suffered financial hardship; incurred costs that he would not otherwise have incurred; and suffered a great deal of distress and anxiety, which impacted on his physical and mental health. Going into the jobcentre filled Mr K with ‘stress, fear and loathing’ and having to rely on the help of friends and relatives while he was without the funds to which he was entitled caused him significant embarrassment.
We upheld Mr K’s complaint.
Resolution
We recommended to Jobcentre Plus that:
- the Chief Executive write to Mr K to apologise for their failings; and
- they pay him £10,000 in recognition of the injustice he suffered.
- the Chief Executive should consider what further action he might take to assure himself that such problems would not recur, and to provide the Ombudsman and Mr K with a copy of the ensuing action plan.
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improving-public-service/reports-and-consultations/reports/parliamentary/small-mistakes,-big-consequences/15
