Department for Work and Pensions

3. Mr E complains about the service he received from DWP between April 1997 and January 2023. Specifically, Mr E complains DWP:

• provided contradictory pension forecasts in 1997 and 2003 • did not accurately record his annual pension credit entitlements on five occasions between 1981 and 1991 • provided incorrect advice regarding his need to pay Class 3 Voluntary Contributions on three occasions between 1987 and 2004.

4. Mr E said this has led to unnecessary distress and financial difficulties for him and his wife.

5. Mr E wants an opportunity to purchase missing pension credits at the rates in place for the years DWP gave him incorrect advice, and for his pension to be increased and backdated. He wants DWP to make service improvements.

6. Mr E is also looking for financial compensation for the distress this has caused him and his wife.

7. Mr E has contacted and complained to DWP, at various times, since 2003 regarding his pension.

8. In 2022 Mr E complained again to DWP. After receiving DWP’s response, Mr E complained to the Independent Case Examiner (ICE). ICE reviews complaints about DWP as the next stage in DWP’s complaint process before someone can complain to us.

9. Mr E received ICE’s final report in July 2024.

10. In April 2025 Mr E wrote to his MP, asking them to refer his complaint to us.

Mr E told us DWP’s failure to accurately record his pension credits, and correctly advise him, means he is not receiving the correct amount of pension.

13. DWP said Mr E’s pension record is correct based on his national insurance contributions.

14. It said it does not have any record of advice staff previously gave to Mr E regarding his pension, and as such are not able to investigate if this was correct.

15. DWP also said it keeps records in accordance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regulations.

16. To be able to investigate Mr E’s complaint we would need the relevant records so we can investigate the claimed failings. We appreciate the events Mr E raises here about DWP and its predecessor agencies happened 22 years ago for the more recent events, and happened 45 years ago for the older events.

17. Because of this passage in time, and the lack of available documentary evidence, we do not consider we can reach robust conclusions about what happened. This means we have decided not to consider these parts of Mr E’s complaint further. We explain the reasons for this in more detail below.

18. DWP’s Information Management Standard categorises customer records into two categories. That is, supporting records or ephemeral records. The standard defines these two categories of records as below.

19. Supporting records are documents or information that influence benefit or child maintenance case decisions, and may be needed for appeals, fraud investigations, or payment assessments.

20. Non-Supporting (ephemeral) records are general documents that do not impact a claim (e.g. enquiries, templates, cover sheets). These are not retained as supporting evidence.

21. DWP’s standard retention time for these records, as set out in its guidance, is:

• 24 months for supporting records • four weeks for ephemeral records.

22. To investigate whether DWP provided incorrect pension forecasts in 1997 to 2003 we would need to review the pension records from that time that DWP used to generate these forecasts and the forecasting processes DWP used in 1997 and 2003.

23. Mr E told us DWP has not accurately recorded his pension credits. To meaningfully investigate the pension forecasts, we would first need to be able to investigate the accuracy of Mr E’s pension records.

24. To investigate if DWP accurately recorded his annual pension credit entitlements on five occasions between 1981 and 1991 we would require the below evidence:

• original pension stamps cards for Mr E’s pension and any sick notes submitted instead of pension stamps for the five occasions between 1981 and 1991 • current DWP records showing Mr E’s pension contribution for these five occasions between 1981 and 1991.

25. We would then need to compare the original stamp records and sick notes, against current DWP records to determine if DWP recorded these accurately, at the time paper records were replaced with digital records.

26. Additionally, we would to need review guidance on how DWP generated pension forecasts in 1997 and 2003. This guidance would now be 29 and 23 years old respectively. Additionally, if we were able to review the guidance on how DWP generated the pension forecasts, we would only be able to review this guidance alongside DWP’s records of Mr E’s pension, which Mr E disputes.

27. According to DWP’s Information Management Standard, all the records we have outlined above would be categorised as supporting customer records with a standard retention time of 24 months. This means DWP likely would have disposed of these records by 2005, and DWP has confirmed to us it no longer has these records. This means these records are not available for us to review and use as evidence on this case.

28. To investigate if DWP provided incorrect advice on three occasions to Mr E between 1987 and 2004 we would require the below evidence:

• records showing when DWP and Mr E communicated • recordings or written records of any advice given to Mr E over the phone • records of any advice given to Mr E in writing.

29. According to DWP’s Customer Records Retention Schedule, telephone call recordings have a non-standard retention period of two years. This means DWP would have disposed of any records from calls and advice provided to Mr E by 2006. Additionally, in its response from January 2023 DWP confirmed it does not have any records of advice given to Mr E previously.

30. This means these records are not available for us to review and use as evidence on this case.

31. Other records related to call discussions between DWP and Mr E would have been categorised as non-supporting records, with a standard retention time of four weeks. These would also no longer be available to us.

32. If an investigation would not be practical, would not reach a satisfactory conclusion and there would be no value in providing that response through an investigation, then we may decide not to investigate.

33. As the records we would require to investigate all these issues are not available it would not be practical to investigate. We would most likely be unable to reach conclusions about what happened.

34. Given the historic nature of events, even if we or DWP were able to identify the staff involved, we do not consider we could obtain reliable accounts from them on what happened.

35. This means we do not consider we ever could reconcile the accuracy of the advice or information DWP recorded, and whether staff got things wrong.

36. We note it is not through faults at DWP this evidence is not available for these issues. It has destroyed the records we would need to review in line with its data retention policies. So, we are not critical of DWP on this.

37. Mr E has some letters from communications with DWP and its predecessors dating back to 1997, but these do not include the evidence we would need to investigate. He does not have his pension stamp cards of sick notes from between 1981 and 1991. He also does not have any recordings or written records of the advice given to him between 1987 and 2004.

38. This means we would not be able to provide a satisfactory conclusion on what happened and whether DWP got things wrong. For this reason, we do not see we can conduct an investigation of any value and will not investigate these matters further.

39. We recognise this is not the outcome Mr E was hoping for, and our decision means he cannot reconcile his concerns about his pension credits. We hope we have clearly explained why we cannot practically investigate his concerns.

1. We have carefully considered Mr E’s complaint about Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

2. Regarding Mr E’s complaint that DWP provided contradictory pension forecasts, did not accurately record his pension credit entitlements and provided him incorrect advice, we have decided not to investigate as we will not be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion.