Department for Work and Pensions

Ms B complains about DWP and ICE. Ms B complains DWP: • did not contact her between 2000 and 2016 in relation to an overpayment of IS between September 1997 and April 1998 • took inappropriate action when it issued a DEA to her employers in November 2017 and again in April 2019 • acted inappropriately when it continued to take action to recover an overpayment from April 2018 as Ms B had raised a complaint about it.

Ms B also complains that ICE: • refused to contact her employer in relation to the issues it was investigating • supported DWP’s actions and failed to take action against it.

4. Ms B has told us the action taken against her has damaged her image and reputation and left her feeling humiliated. Ms B has told us if DWP resolved this issue without any delays it would not have had to contact her employer in 2018 when she worked in a high-profile job. Having money deducted from her earnings has also caused her serious financial difficulty.

5. Ms B would like a financial remedy above the £200 offered following the ICE report. She would also like DWP to make service improvements to address the issues she complains about.

6. In 1997 Ms B received an education grant whilst she was also in receipt of Income Support (IS). As a result, in September 1998, DWP decided it had overpaid Ms B IS between September 1997 and April 1998.

7. In September 1998 DWP contacted Ms B to inform her of the overpayment and asked her to repay it. The letter also contained appeal rights telling Ms B what to do if she disagreed with its decision.

8. DWP sent Ms B further correspondence in relation to its decision between September 1998 and December 1999. In December 1999 Ms B called DWP to dispute the overpayment.

9. In August 2005 DWP’s debt recovery systems changed, and Debt Management replaced the previous debt collection regime. Debt Management then referred Ms B’s outstanding debt to a Debt Collection Agency (DCA).

10. In January 2017 DWP issued Ms B a letter before action (LBA). As DWP received no response, it again referred her debt to a DCA. As there was no successful recovery action the debt returned to Debt Management and a further LBA was issued in October 2017.

11. In November 2017 HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) notified Debt Management that Ms B was employed. As a result, DWP issued letters to Ms B and her employer to begin the process of recovering the outstanding debt from her wages via a Direct Earnings Attachment (DEA). A DEA is a method used by DWP to recover overpaid benefits directly from a salary.

12. In December 2017 DWP responded to Ms B’s complaint. It told her that she had been previously informed of the IS overpayment. It acknowledged there were periods when it had not regularly contacted Ms B about the debt.

13. In August 2018 Ms B called Debt Management and complained about DWP contacting her employer and taking DEA action. Ms B disputed that she owed DWP any debt. She asked DWP to take no recovery action whilst she was raising a complaint and disputing the debt. DWP told her that there were no grounds to suspend recovery action.

14. Following this Ms B continued to correspond with DWP about her concerns.

15. In April 2019 DWP issued another LBA to Ms B. Ms B then contacted DWP asking why it had issued another LBA as she had raised a complaint. She told it the matter had not been resolved and under no circumstances should it send a DEA to her employer.

16. As DWP had not resolved Ms B’s complaint she then approached ICE.

17. In May 2019 Ms B contacted Debt Management unhappy that DWP had sent a further DEA to her employer. DWP told Ms B that although she had escalated her complaint this would not stop ongoing debt recovery.

18. In June 2019 DWP started deducting money from Ms B’s wages.

19. In September 2019 DWP confirmed to Ms B and her employer that DEA action had stopped as it had now collected the amount owed.

20. In May 2022 ICE completed its investigation of Ms B’s complaint. It partially upheld her complaint. ICE concluded the considerable amounts of time between DWP contacting Ms B about her debt this were unreasonable.

21. ICE did not uphold the parts of Ms B’s complaint in relation to issuing the DEA to her employer and DWP continuing to take recovery action after she raised a complaint.

DWP did not contact Ms B between 2000 and 2016

25. Ms B told us that had DWP contacted her to properly pursue the debt between 2000 and 2016 it would not have had to approach her employer in 2018.

26. DWP apologised for its failure to contact her about the overpayment as regularly as it should have done. It also agreed to make a consolatory payment of £200. This was in recognition of its error.

27. The legal power to recover any IS overpayment is set out in Section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The Act contains no time limit for the recovery of any overpayment of IS. As this is the case, even if DWP does not make contact over a debt for a long period of time, the debt is still recoverable.

28. The DWP’s Customer Charter sets out that it will keep people updated of progress. As we can see there were times when DWP took no action for years at a time, DWP did not keep Ms B updated as it should have done in line with its Customer Charter. DWP acknowledged this and does not dispute it should have done more.

29. DWP offered Ms B a £200 consolatory payment in recognition that it did not contact her as often as it should throughout this time. This was in relation to the frustration this caused her. This is in line with our Principled for Remedy that say organisations should offer financial compensation for distress.

30. Frustration or distress of this kind would be level two of our severity of injustice scale. Financial payments at level two would usually range from £120 to £550. As DWP has already offered Ms B £200, this is within our scale. So, we believe DWP have already done enough to put right the impact on Ms B.

31. DWP did contact Ms B regularly from 2017 onwards. It sent her a LBA In January and again in October. These letters told Ms B that if she did not contact DWP to discuss ways to pay the outstanding overpayment it would contact her employer without further reminders. The first contact DWP made with her employer was in November 2017.

32. The evidence shows DWP gave Ms B opportunity to come to an agreement to pay during 2017 before it contacted her employer. As such we cannot say that DWP contacting her employer was directly linked to its earlier inaction to recover the overpayment.

33. It is reasonable to say Ms B was aware that she had not repaid the overpayment she disputed in 1999. DWP never suggested to Ms B it had written off the debt. So, although DWP did not regularly contact her about the debt she was aware the debt still existed.

34. The other impact Ms B told us about was financial difficulty. This was because her employer deducted money from her income to repay the overpayment. It is not possible for us to say this financial impact was due to DWP not contacting her. This is because DWP not contacting Ms B did not cost her anything financially.

35. It appears any financial difficulty Ms B experienced would have been later in the process when DWP deducted money from her income. As the debt remained, Ms B was always going to have to repay it at some point. There is no evidence to show the delay in DWP taking recovery action and contacting Ms B regularly affected the overall debt owed.

36. We are sorry to hear about the negative impact there has been on Ms B. In this case we cannot directly link that impact with the issue she complains about. As this is the case, we will take no further action on this aspect of her complaint.

DWP took inappropriate action when it issued a DEA to Ms B’s employer.

37. Ms B told us that in 2017 she was in contact with DWP. She believes as she was engaging with it in relation to the debt, it should not have issued a DEA to her employer in November 2017.

38. She also told us she began a new role in September 2018 and contacted DWP as she did not want another DEA issuing to this employer. This included a phone call in April 2019 where Ms B asked DWP not to contact her new employer.

39. In its complaint responses DPW told Ms B it received a letter from her daughter on 22 November, the day after it issued the DEA. The letter asked DWP to provide more information about the debt. It also confirmed that a request for more information would not stop its recovery action.

40. DWP wrote to Ms B on 31 October 2017. It told her she should use the telephone number it provided to make contact to discuss ways to pay the outstanding debt. It also told her if she had not made contact by 21 November it would move to the next step of its process and it would send no further reminders before taking action.

41. Part 6 of The Social Security (Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations 2013 gives DWP the legal power to ask an employer to make deductions directly from a person’s earnings. It does this by asking the employer to implement a DEA. DWP does not have to go through the courts to do this.

42. To see if DWP followed the relevant guidance when it contacted Ms B’s employer we have considered the guidance set out in the DWP ‘Benefit overpayment recovery guide’. This guidance explains the Secretary of State has an obligation to protect public funds and to ensure that, wherever possible, an overpayment is recovered.

43. Chapter 5 of the guidance sets out when DWP can use a DEA. It says: ‘Where a debtor has failed to make an arrangement to pay and is in PAYE employment, the Department can instruct a debtor’s employer to take deductions direct from their employee’s salary to recover a debt’.

44. The guidance says that if Ms B had made an arrangement to pay it would not issue a DEA. We can see no evidence that Ms B made an arrangement to pay the debt DWP was asking her to repay.

45. Ms B has told us she was engaging with DWP, but this is not the same as agreeing to pay, which is what would have stopped DWP issuing a DEA.

46. Ms B told us that after a phone call in April 2019 DWP did not call her back and this was why the issue was not resolved.

47. Although there is no evidence DWP called Ms B back on one occasion, it appears there were many other opportunities for her to arrange to repay the debt from January 2017 onwards. We cannot say that if DWP had called her one more time it would have resolved the issue.

48. By that stage the only action that would have stopped DWP contacting her employer would have been for Ms B to agree to repay the debt without the need for a new DEA. We have seen no evidence to show Ms B said she was willing to do this in any of her contacts with DWP.

49. We understand Ms B feels strongly that DWP should not have contacted her employer. We are sorry to hear that her reputation was damaged.

50. It appears DWP acted within its guidance when it issued the DEA. There are therefore no indications of maladministration.

DWP continued to take action to recover an overpayment after Ms B had raised a complaint.

51. Ms B told us she had raised a complaint and made it clear to DWP that she did not agree with it contacting her employer and imposing a DEA. She believes because of this it should have not taken any further action until it had fully addressed her complaint.

52. In its complaint responses DWP told Ms B: ‘I appreciate that you may not be happy that the overpayment has to be paid back, but recovery action will continue. I must also advise you that submitting a complaint will not put any recovery action on hold’.

53. Chapter 4 of the DWP Benefit overpayment recovery guide covers appeals and disputes in relation to recovery action. The guidance sets out that DWP will usually suspend recovery action if an appeal is being made.

54. In relation to Ms B’s complaint, she did attempt to appeal the original decision in 1999/2000, but HM Courts and Tribunal Service rejected this appeal as Ms B made it outside the time limit. As this was the case there were no ongoing appeals when DWP was taking action to recover the debt in 2017.

55. There is no mention in this guidance that DWP should suspend recovery action if the person raises a complaint. We can also see DWP specifically told Ms B recovery action would continue after she raised a complaint.

56. As this is the case we have seen no indications of maladministration in DWP continuing with recovery action after Ms B raised a complaint.

ICE refused to contact Ms B’s employer.

57. Ms B told us that in a phone call she specifically asked ICE to communicate with her workplace so it could fully understand what had happened to her at work and why she lost her job.

58. In response to this ICE told Ms B that as her the complaint related to DWP it would not liaise with third parties.

59. We understand Ms B wanted ICE to contact her employer and is disappointed it did not. We are sorry to hear Ms B feels her employer treated her differently following DWP’s contact in relation to the DEA.

60. The role of ICE is to give an independent view on complaints from people who feel DWP treated them unfairly or are unhappy with how their original complaint was handled.

61. We have found no policy or guidance that suggests ICE should have any role in corresponding with a complainant’s employer. It is simply not the role of ICE to do that in the way Ms B wanted it to.

62. We have seen nothing to suggest there was any need for ICE to contact Ms B’s employer to understand the issues she was complaining about. The role of ICE is clear that it can only investigate complaints about specific government agencies.

63. Any issues Ms B had with her employer are not within the scope of ICE to investigate or consider. It would not be in the role of ICE to liaise with Ms B’s employer in any way, even if she wanted it to.

64. As this is the case there are no indications ICE did anything wrong by refusing to contact Ms B’s employer while it was investigating her complaint about DWP.

ICE Supported DWP actions and failed to act against it.

65. Ms B told us ICE failed to prevent the actions taken by DWP and has instead supported its immoral and illegal acts.

66. Following the ICE investigation Ms B contacted it to say she was unhappy as DWP had not treated her fairly. She also told ICE she disputed the overpayment of IS. She said DWP had not shown ICE beyond reasonable doubt that she did not disclose she was a student at the time of the overpayment decision.

67. In its response to Ms B’s concerns ICE told her that although she disagreed with its findings, she had not provided any evidence in support of her dispute that would warrant a review of its report.

68. ICE also told Ms B that it does not investigate legislative issues including benefit entitlement decisions. It confirmed this would include her disputing if an overpayment decision was correct.

69. We understand Ms B remains unhappy as she does not feel ICE properly held DWP to account. As above, ICE upheld Ms B’s complaint about delays in DWP contacting her and recommended a consolatory payment of £200 as a result.

70. ICE addressed the other issues that Ms B complained about. This included considering if DWP acted within its guidance when issuing the DEA and continuing recovery action after Ms B raised a complaint.

71. We can see ICE Investigated these parts of the complaints thoroughly and fairly, basing their decisions on the available facts and evidence. This is in line with our Principles of Good Complaint Handling.

72. We know Ms B does not agree with ICE’s decision not to uphold these parts of her complaint. We are sorry to hear that she feels ICE has not held DWP to account.

73. ICE could only hold DWP to account if it found DWP had not followed the relevant guidance. ICE found DWP did act within the relevant guidance and sets out clearly why in its final report.

74. The ICE report did not address the issues Ms B raised in relation to DWP not proving to ICE that it had evidence to support it original overpayment decision. To see if it should have addressed this issue we have considered ICE guidance ‘How to bring a complaint to the Independent Case Examiner’.

75. This guidance explains which cases ICE cannot deal with. It says ICE cannot deal with complaints or disputes about matters of law. The guidance specifically gives an example of this as any decisions in relation to benefit entitlement decisions. A decision that DWP had overpaid Ms B IS would be a benefit entitlement decision.

76. Therefore, ICE could not investigate this aspect of Ms B’s complaint.

77. As there are no indications of maladministration, we will take no further action in relation to Ms B’s complaint. We know this will be disappointing for Ms B, so we hope our clear explanations are helpful for her to understand the reasons for our decision.

1. We have carefully considered Ms B’s complaint about the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and Independent Case Examiner (ICE). Ms B brought her complaint to us as she remains dissatisfied with how DWP and ICE dealt with her case. We understand Ms B feels strongly about this and are sorry to hear how these issues have impacted her.

2. In relation to DWP not contacting Ms B regularly we can see it has already taken action to put right the impact of this issue. In relation to DWP issuing a Direct Earnings Attachment (DEA) and taking action to recover an overpayment of Income Support (IS), we have seen no indications of failings.

3. In relation to ICE contacting Ms B’s employer and not taking action against DWP there are no indications it did anything wrong. As this is the case we will take no further action.