Department for Work and Pensions

4. Mr G complains DWP failed to adequately communicate the change in pension legislation from the Pensions Act relating to the ADI. Mr G also complains DWP failed to respond to letters and calls and initially failed to direct him to its complaint process.

5. Mr G tells us the events meant he lost the opportunity to plan for the change, resulting in financial difficulties. He said DWP’s actions have caused him stress and frustration and left him struggling to find ways to replace the lost income.

6. Mr G tells us he would like DWP to ensure he is not left in a worse off position as a result of its failure to adequately communicate the change to the legalisation by providing a financial remedy.

7. ADI was created in the 1940s to supplement the old age pension for single income households where the breadwinner had reached State Pension Age and the other, with no independent income, had not. Entitlement to ADI ended, among other things, when the dependent person/spouse in the household reached State Pension Age and could access benefits/income in their own right.

8. Mr G began receiving ADI in relation to his wife on 7 August 2007 while living in France, where he still resides. He said he was told he would receive ADI until his wife reached State Pension Age. Mr G’s wife was due to reach State Pension Age in June 2021, although this changed to June 2022 due to reforms and changes to State Pension Age.

9. In February 2018 DWP told Mr G all existing ADI payments would cease on 6 April 2020, over two years before his wife would receive her own income through the State Pension. This would mean Mr G would receive £60-£70 less per week for over two years - between April 2020 (when ADI ended) and June 2022 (when Mr G’s wife reached State Pension Age).

10. Mr G complained to DWP the same month, February 2018, to say DWP had not told him about the ending of ADI. Mr G said not having ADI and having to wait until his wife reached State Pension Age in June 2022 would have a detrimental impact on his finances.

Issue 1 – Communication of changes to ADI

12. Mr G complains DWP failed to tell him about changes to his entitlement to ADI in a timely way.

13. All parties accept Mr G was no longer entitled to ADI after 6 April 2020. This was made law following the Pensions Act 2007 receiving royal assent on 26 July 2007. Mr G’s complaint asks whether DWP communicated the change brought about by legislation so he would have known about the ending of ADI and be able to plan his finances accordingly.

14. DWP told us there is no legal duty on whether and how the Department should communicate changes in legislation. DWP say the Courts have said DWP had no duty to tell people of pension changes. It said the Courts found any such duty would need to be introduced by Parliament and not the courts.

15. We recognise the Courts reached a binding decision on the question of whether a legal duty to notify existed in relation to other pension changes outside of this case. However, we have not seen the Courts made findings about the adequacy or otherwise of DWP’s communication of changes. Also, our role is to consider administrative fairness. We are not investigating the lawfulness of DWP’s actions.

16. For these reasons, we have considered DWP’s administrative actions in relation to communicating changes to Mr G. We have considered relevant legislation, policy and guidance, as well as obtaining evidence from DWP directly. This has helped us understand DWP’s approach to communicating changes in entitlement to ADI and establish what should have happened.

17. Our Principles expect public bodies to be ‘open and accountable’ – they should provide information that is clear, accurate, complete, relevant and timely. Further public bodies should act fairly and proportionately – people should be treated fairly and consistently so that those in similar circumstances are dealt with in a similar way. Any difference in treatment should be justified by the individual circumstances of the case. We have considered below whether DWP appropriately met these expectations.

18. DWP said it thought Mr G may have known about ADI ending from 2006. DWP said in May 2006 Mr G contacted the International Pension Centre (which handles queries for DWP from individuals overseas), almost a year before he claimed ADI. Therefore, DWP suggested he may have been aware of the Government White Paper (precursor to the Pensions Act 2007) recommending the ending of ADI.

19. We have seen no evidence Mr G knew about the White Paper in 2006 which suggested the ending of ADI. DWP provided no evidence to show Mr G’s communication in 2006 was about this or ADI ending. Mr G said when he was granted ADI in 2007 he was told he would receive it until his wife reached State Pension Age, so this is what he was expecting. Mr G told us he only found out his ADI would end when DWP enclosed a leaflet with his annual statement in February 2018. DWP accepted it had not provided information to Mr G about the ending of ADI until February 2018. Further, when Mr G contacted DWP in 2018 after receiving formal notification about ADI ending, it was to express his shock and outrage.

20. We have considered the intention of the legislation which brought about ADI ceasing. The Pensions Act 2007 became law in July 2007. It said ADI would be awarded to new recipients until April 2010. Further, there would be a transitional period for existing ADI claimants. As long as claimants continued to meet the ADI criteria, their payments would be made until 6 April 2020. Therefore, DWP had up to 12 and half years to tell recipients about the ending of ADI – July 2007 to April 2020.

21. DWP told us it did not have a formal written plan for communicating the ending of ADI to those in receipt of it. However, DWP agreed the decision to insert a transitional period for ADI was made by Parliament and it ‘seems reasonable to assume that the transitional period [from April 2010 to April 2020] was primarily in order to help claimants to move from receiving ADI to not receiving it.’ DWP said the transitional period also allowed younger dependants an opportunity to plan and make alternative arrangements (plans for work, fulfil their earnings potential or explore/claim other possible benefit entitlements) once the ADI payments ceased if that is what they wanted to do. In short, DWP acknowledged it needed to communicate with recipients about the ending of ADI and this is what it did.

22. During our investigation DWP amended its position above. It said there was no expectation for Parliament that notice should already have been given prior to 2018. In particular:

• The 10 year period was intended to allow the majority of those receiving ADI in 2010 to receive it through to its natural conclusion (they would cease to be entitled to ADI before the April 2020 cut-off point).

• The 2007 White Paper for Pensions Act said ‘In the minority of cases where there is an ADI still in payment in 2020, we will ensure that the individual and his or her spouse receive advice on other possible benefit entitlements.’ DWP said this assumed that people would be told at the end of the period.

• The Post legislative scrutiny of the Pensions Act 2007 (published in January 2015) said ‘Arrangements will be made to ensure that those affected will be given advance warning of the cessation of the payment and advice on the availability of other support.’

23. We recognise DWP intended to, and did, tell claimants of ADI about other entitlements at the end of the period (before April 2020). That does not mean the intention of the Pensions Act 2007 was to provide no information to individuals about changes that affected them until the changes were about to be implemented. DWP informed Mr G and affected parties about the ending of ADI in February 2018. However, all parties agree, a transitional period was introduced into the Pensions Act 2007 to help people prepare for the changes. Further, the 2007 White Paper also considered the implications of pension reform for society (page 187, section D.36). It made a general point about communicating pension changes across the board saying ‘This is a deeply complex picture. Reforms to introduce greater simplicity and stability into the state pension system will help people to make decisions about saving.’ This shows the intention behind the Pensions Act 2007 was to help people make informed choices about saving and that they would be told about the changes. Lastly, the post-legislative scrutiny in 2015 was forward looking. It was clear that people who had not been informed of changes should be given advance warning. Despite these factors, overseas recipients of ADI were not informed in a timely way as the first direct information DWP sent them was in 2018.

24. In contrast, DWP told UK-based recipients ADI was ending as early as 2010. DWP said UK residents were given leaflets, about the ending of ADI, enclosed with annual statements. This meant UK based recipients received 10 years notice ADI was ending. This was equivalent to the entire transition period (2010 to 2020). This was in accordance with our Principle of being open and accountable – providing accurate and timely information.

25. DWP considered it had provided sufficient information to overseas recipients of ADI, such as Mr G, between 2010 and 2018. For those living overseas at that time, DWP said a ‘self identification’ approach was in place. DWP said there was information available online. It said it provided information to third party organisations, such as British Consulates, which had ‘communication channels targeting overseas audiences’. DWP said it gave the third parties information to place on their websites, with links to government website information.

26. We have seen and accept information was available on the Pension Service and DWP’s website from as early as January 2008. This was 12 years before the ending of ADI was due to take place. Therefore, we do not question the provision of publicly available information about ADI.

27. However, we consider DWP’s self-identification approach was insufficient, which made it incomplete. DWP’s website information was only available to those who searched online or who had grounds to query whether their entitlement would continue. Similarly, DWP could not demonstrate how third parties, such as consulates, planned to tell affected overseas recipients about the ending of ADI.

28. DWP said it is fair and reasonable to communicate with different groups of claimants in different ways when taking into consideration a range of factors – costs and timeliness. DWP said there were different types of ADI claimants – those who would not get ADI as they reached state pension age after the cut-off date (2010), those who would cease to continue receiving it before 2020 (as their spouses reached SPA); and those who would cease to receive it when the transitional period ended in April 2020.

29. However, evidence shows DWP communicated about ADI with both UK-based and overseas recipients of ADI regardless of when their entitlement was due to end. DWP’s different treatment was solely on the basis of location – only overseas recipients of ADI were told later about ADI ending.

30. DWP said it faced difficulties in providing information to those who lived abroad. It was low cost to edit the UK resident leaflet sent to who all benefitted from uprating (inflationary increases to the state pension which did not apply to all overseas recipients of the state pension), so all the ADI recipients would have been included anyway. DWP said it was different for overseas residents. DWP said it would have needed to consider sending a separate leaflet or letter to overseas recipients.

31. DWP said it chose to send personalised information to all ADI recipients (both UK and overseas) later in the transitional period (2018), when there was a natural reduction in the number of people receiving ADI. DWP considered sending information two to three years beforehand struck the correct balance in allowing time for financial family adjustments and avoided DWP incurring unnecessary delivery costs. DWP suggested the numbers of overseas ADI recipients was too large to warrant telling them individually. It told us there were 27,950 claimants of ADI between 2010 and 2020. There were 9,521 by February 2020. DWP said that would have meant warning 37,471 of something that would not apply to them in April 2020.

32. DWP told us it had given Mr G and other overseas recipients sufficient notice to prepare for the ending of ADI. DWP told us:

• It published details about post-legislative scrutiny of the Pensions Act in January 2015 where it said: ‘Arrangements will be made to ensure that those affected will be given advance warning of the cessation of the payment and advice on the availability of other support.’

• ‘In about 2017, with two to three years remaining in the transition period, the Department decided to supplement the information available on the government website with a more targeted approach that included overseas residents… This plan was not a formal, written plan.’

• ‘within two to three years before the final removal of ADIs in 2020, the Department’s communication plan … was implemented for all overseas State Pension recipients. This plan of direct notification, when coupled with the public information which had been available online since 2008, ensured overseas residents were made aware of the ADI change in advance. The Department’s approach to overseas residents like Mr G was both reasonable and effective. This conclusion is not undermined if UK residents received leaflets highlighting the end of ADIs earlier than the overseas residents.’

• ‘We believe that [the 2018] notice gave [Mr G] sufficient time to plan for the loss of the ADI in his State Pension.’

33. The information DWP provided above about its approach to communicating the ending of ADI for overseas recipients is retrospective. We have seen no contemporaneous evidence this was its thinking at the time events were unfolding. We recognise DWP would have needed to weigh up the options and costs associated with telling overseas recipients of changes. However, we do not consider the evidence supports its view contacting overseas recipients was too difficult in 2010. In particular, the figures DWP provided to us about the total number of ADI recipients demonstrated the number of overseas recipients was likely to be relatively small compared to the total number of claimants. Therefore, we are not persuaded it was likely to have required the disproportionate amount of resource it said it did to contact overseas recipients.

34. DWP was able to contact Mr G, when overseas, about his ADI entitlement in 2007 and in 2018. We accept there might have been overseas recipients who were more difficult to contact. However, we have not seen evidence of barriers to DWP telling Mr G about ADI ending before 2018. Overseas recipients of ADI simply received a lesser service from DWP.

35. For the reasons above, we find DWP failed to directly communicate the ending of ADI in a timely way to Mr G and overseas recipients of ADI. DWP did not provide the transitional period it acknowledged was intended by the legislation and which it provided to UK-based recipients. This meant DWP’s communication about the ending of ADI was not complete and clear, or fair and consistent, for Mr G and overseas recipients. DWP have suggested that the onus on it to communicate is reduced because Mrs G was of working age and could have obtained work to offset the loss. We do not agree. For the reasons we have already said, DWP did not allow Mr G, and by extension, Mrs G, time to prepare their joint financial affairs. Therefore, DWP did not adhere to our Principles of being ‘open and accountable’ and ‘acting fairly and proportionately’. We consider it was maladministration.

Issue 2 – DWP’s handling of Mr G’s complaint 36. Mr G complained when he raised concerns about ADI, DWP failed to respond to letters and calls and initially failed to direct him to its complaint process.

37. DWP’s Complaints Procedure from 2018 said it would respond to complaints with an outcome, or update individuals about when they would receive a response, within 15 working days. Our Principles say good administration means ‘being customer focused’ – public bodies should do what they say they are going to do if they make a commitment to do something.

38. Mr G wrote to DWP about his concerns regarding the ending of ADI on 6 March 2018. He asked DWP to confirm ADI was ending, how he might replace this lost income and whether consideration had been given to the hardship it would cause. Mr G also called the International Pensions Centre (IPC) which handles pension matters on behalf of DWP for those living overseas on three occasions between February and December 2018. We have not seen a record of these telephone calls, but Mr G wrote to a third party in October 2018 saying the IPC had promised a written response to his concerns.

39. As Mr G’s correspondence and communications were setting out his concerns and confusion over the ending of ADI, he deserved a timely and clear reply. However, DWP did not provide a written response to Mr G, or a timeframe in which he could expect one, until 16 January 2019. Although DWP’s letter apologised for the delay in responding to Mr G and offered him £125 compensation, it did not say why it had taken 11 months to respond. Therefore, we find DWP were not customer focused and did not provide a response which fell within its own service standards (complaints procedure). For these reasons, we consider DWP’s actions amounted to maladministration.

Injustice

40. Our next step is consider information and evidence about what was likely to have occurred if the maladministration by DWP had not happened and if there is a remedy gap in relation to what actually happened. As of July 2007, the Pensions Act 2007 set out ADI was going to end completely in April 2020. This meant Mr G was going to receive £60 to £70 less per week for 26 months – between April 2020 and Mr G’s wife receiving her state pension in June 2022. In the absence of maladministration Mr G would have been told about the ending of ADI at the same time as UK-based recipients, in April 2010.

41. We asked Mr G about what would have happened if he had found out about the ending of ADI in April 2010. Mr G said now ‘everything was done and dusted’, it was difficult to think what he might have done had he known about the ending of ADI earlier. Mr G said he felt shocked and dismayed in February 2018 when he first found out ADI was ending. He said he wanted to find out if it could be changed. Mr G noted he would have been much younger (68) than the 76 years when he found out about ADI in 2018.

42. Mr G said he would have known he needed to make up a shortfall of around £70 per week. Mr G said he might have tried to get work in France, although he was doubtful that would have been possible.  Instead, Mr G said he would also have considered returning to the UK to either receive a benefit or to obtain work doing manual labour.  Mr G thought he would have moved in with his daughter to do so. Mr G said aged 76 that was not possible, and he also had health issues by then - a restrictive heart condition.

43. Mr G said things were better now his wife had her pension (as of June 2022), but not having ADI, or savings, between April 2020 and June 2022 had caused a great deal of mental anguish. Mr G spoke about the worry he and his wife experienced in February 2018 for the first two to three years. He lost sleep.  Mr G said he worried about how he was going to make up the shortfall of between £6,000 to 8,000. Mr G said he and his wife did not live extravagantly so he had no choice but to economise between 2018 and 2022.  Mr G said DWP’s actions led them to not visit family in the UK and to go without small luxuries such as new clothes and going out to dinner. Mr G said he had to ask his children to make their own transport arrangements from the airport when they came to visit him in France.

44. We cannot establish with sufficient certainty what steps Mr G would have taken to offset the loss of ADI if he had known it would end earlier, as he is not sure himself what exactly he would have done. This means we cannot say on the balance of probability Mr G would have been able to offset the shortfall of £6,000 to £8,000 as he claims. We cannot say if his financial situation would have improved, worsened or remained the same if he had known ADI was going to end before DWP told him in 2018. However, experiencing the lost opportunity to plan for his financial future and for a different outcome is a lasting injustice to Mr G.

45. We sympathise with the position Mr G was placed in. The change in legislation around ADI would always have impacted Mr G regardless of when DWP told him it was ending. However, Mr G was clearly shocked and panicked at finding out so late in the day. DWP’s failure to communicate this earlier meant he had less time to emotionally prepare for it. Mr G was caused additional distress and inconvenience in waiting 11 months for DWP’s response to his complaint. Although DWP have already offered an apology for the delay in responding, its actions compounded the existing delay in Mr G’s fully understanding and accepting the ending of ADI. Mr G would have likely been distressed by the absence of an apology from DWP for its failure to communicate with him many years earlier.

46. Our Principles set out how public bodies should put things right when their actions have had a negative impact on individuals. This includes returning the complainant to the position they would have been in had the maladministration not occurred, or offering appropriate compensation if that is not possible. Level 3 of our Severity of Injustice scale relates to those who have suffered a moderate impact that has lasted for a significant period of time. The failings may impact a person’s ability to live a normal life due to stress, however, once ceased the person would be expected to recover quickly. This includes a single traumatic or highly distressing experience where there is no other significant adverse impact. Finding out about the ending of ADI eight years after he should have done is an emotional and traumatic event which caused Mr G shock which went beyond ordinary distress or inconvenience. Part of Mr G’s shock was likely be due to the ending of ADI, which was a decision that came about from the change in the law rather than DWP’s failure to communicate. However, a significant degree of distress was caused by the lack of time he had to properly plan his and his wife’s finances and not receiving a timely response to his queries from DWP. Mr G continues to believe things would have been different for him during the period they did not receive ADI or his wife’s State Pension (April 2020 to June 2022). He says things have settled down after his wife received her state pension in 2022. Therefore, we consider Level 3 is appropriate in view of the emotional impact caused to Mr G. DWP’s contribution to the distress and upset caused to Mr G by its communication of the change and handling of his subsequent complaint (see above). For these reasons, we consider Mr G’s case falls at the higher end of level 3.

47. The Principles also say public bodies should consider offering a remedy to others who might also have suffered similarly from the same maladministration. We consider Mr G’s situation is not an isolated one. A year before ADI ended, May 2019, a DWP Minister told Parliament 10,817 people were still in receipt of ADI. It is possible many others could have been affected in the same way as Mr G if they were living overseas.

1. We find DWP failed to communicate to Mr G he would no longer receive a pension benefit, Adult Dependency Increase (ADI), within a reasonable timeframe. We find also DWP did not respond to Mr G’s initial complaints and queries in a timely way.

2. We find DWP should have told Mr G in April 2010 ADI would no longer be paid in April 2020, following a change to legislation - the Pensions Act 2007 (the Pensions Act). Instead, DWP provided this information to Mr G in February 2018. This meant Mr G had two years to prepare for the ending of ADI instead of 10 years intended by the Pensions Act. Further, DWP failed to respond to Mr G’s letters of complaint on this matter for 11 months. We considered there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the financial losses Mr G claimed. However, we provisionally found DWP’s actions caused Mr G inconvenience, distress and loss of opportunity for a different outcome. This put him at a disadvantage compared to UK-based recipients who benefitted from the full transition period intended by the Pensions Act. We therefore partly uphold the complaint.

3. We recommend within six weeks of our final report DWP:

• Apologise to Mr G for the anxiety, distress and loss of opportunity its actions caused him.

• Offer Mr G £800 compensation for the injustice he suffered and provide us with evidence of the offer.

• Confirm it will provide a comparable remedy, including compensation, to anyone who approaches it having suffered a similar injustice from the same maladministration to Mr G. Any remedy for non-financial losses suffered by those individuals should reflect our Severity of Injustice scale.