Department for Work and Pensions

DWP

12. Mr D tells us the DWP mishandled his benefits. Specifically, he complains: • In October 2019 he was wrongly assessed for PIP and found to only be entitled to lower amounts. He said he was not therefore entitled to disability premiums. Following this, he was misadvised to go on UC and assured that if his subsequent PIP reassessment found he should get higher amounts, DWP would move him to ‘old style’ benefits with disability premiums • after being placed on UC, the DWP failed to carry out supersession after MR found he was entitled to ‘higher rates of PIP for life’. He said this meant he was entitled to disability premiums and should have been transferred to ‘old style’ benefits, or, if it could not do this, award him a ‘special payment’ which others who were wrongly moved to UC were receiving • the DWP refused to video call him in line with his requested reasonable adjustment. This caused the DWP to misunderstand what he was complaining about. Mr D said this meant the above concerns were never considered or responded to.

13. Mr D said despite a DWP MR agreeing he should have PIP for life with the severe disabled premium (SDP), it has not placed him back on this benefit and has instead left him on UC. He said the DWP has not considered or put right the impact caused to him by these mistakes.

14. He said he experienced considerable distress, upset and frustration caused by the DWP’s poor handling of his benefits and its lack of action following its mistakes. He said this lack of action caused him to be homeless and exacerbated his neurological condition.

15. Mr D wants the DWP to acknowledge its mistakes, to apologise for them and pay him a financial remedy. He would also like the DWP to backdate his benefit entitlement which he should have received had it not made mistakes. He also wants the DWP to improve its service.

ICE

16. Mr D tells us ICE did not handle his complaint correctly when it investigated his concerns in 2021 and 2023. Specifically, he complains: • ICE wrote to a wrong address in 2021 and 2023 which meant he did not have the opportunity to comment on its proposed scope before it started its investigation, and; • once ICE started its investigation, it refused to consider Mr D’s concerns that its investigation was wrongly scoped and was considering matters he had not asked it to look into • ICE refused to videocall him in line with his requested reasonable adjustment and this led to misunderstandings around what he wanted to complain about. Mr D said this meant his concerns about the DWP’s handling of his benefits have been wrongly investigated by ICE.

17. Mr D said it was important to be able to discuss the complaint with ICE to ensure it fully understood what his complaint was before it commenced its investigation, but it refused videocalls. This led to considerable frustration and distress. Further frustration was caused when ICE issued its investigation report which did not address Mr D’s concerns. He said this could have been avoided had it allowed videocalls.

18. Mr D wants ICE to acknowledge its mistakes, to apologise for them and pay him a financial remedy. He also wants ICE to improve its service.

19. Mr D has suffered from Functional Neurological Disorder (FND) since 2004. FND affects the functioning of the nervous system. Mr D is a wheelchair user because of his FND and, on some days, is unable to use his right arm or legs and can have difficulties with his speaking or swallowing.

20. Mr D also suffers from different types of debilitating seizures and cognitive issues linked to his FND which result in episodes of memory loss and mental fatigue.

21. The DWP assessed Mr D for PIP eligibility on 31 October 2019. On 23 March 2020, Mr D called the UC customer line to claim this benefit. His UC award started in April 2020.

22. PIP is a benefit which assists individuals who have long-term illnesses, disabilities, or mental health conditions. UC is a means tested benefit which supports individuals and families who are out of work or are on a low income.

23. An applicant can receive both PIP and UC at the same time. This is because UC is means tested while PIP is not and both support the individual in different ways. As we will now set out, Mr D appears to have been in receipt of both PIP and UC.

24. The DWP completed its PIP consideration and wrote to Mr D on 18 May. It awarded him the enhanced rate of PIP for his mobility needs but did not give an award for his daily living needs. The DWP backdated this award to 31 October 2019.

25. A PIP award is split between two key elements. Firstly, a PIP assessment will review mobility needs, which considers how the applicant is able to move around. This includes, for example, whether they are able to stand and how far they can walk either aided or unaided.

26. The next consideration is daily living needs. This will review a range of different activities the applicant would be expected to carry out as part of their daily life. This includes preparing food, eating and drinking, washing and bathing, dressing and undressing, communicating and making budget decisions.

27. Mr D challenged the DWP’s PIP decision through MR. MR is the first stage of the DWP’s statutory appeals process and allows the applicant to challenge a benefit decision.

28. The DWP completed MR on 28 August 2020. The DWP’s MR awarded Mr D the enhanced rate of PIP for his mobility needs, alongside the enhanced rate for his daily living needs. The DWP backdated this award to 31 October 2019.

29. Mr D raised several complaints with the DWP from 2020 through 2022.

30. Mr D first approached ICE in July 2021 as the next stage of the DWP’s complaints process. ICE did not formally open its investigation until December 2023. ICE delayed its investigation as it became aware of Mr D’s legal action against the DWP in 2022. It considered this legal action should conclude before it investigated.

31. ICE commenced its investigation in December 2023 and issued its report in June 2024.

DWP

DWP’s PIP decision and its impact upon Mr D’s move to UC

34. Mr D tells us the DWP initially assessed him as being eligible for a lower rate of PIP in October 2019. He said this decision was wrong and when the DWP looked again at its decision following MR in August 2020, it decided to correctly award him the enhanced rate for both mobility needs and daily living needs.

35. He said that because the DWP initially awarded the lower rate of PIP he lost his entitlement to SDP. SDP is an additional financial support for people with severe disabilities.

36. Those in receipt of benefits like PIP, alongside SDP, may receive less benefit if they moved to UC at this time. For this reason, the DWP had rules in place which prevented claimants from moving to UC if they were in receipt of SDP.

37. The DWP could also award a ‘transitional payment’ to those in receipt of SDP who moved to UC. The transitional payment protected claimants from suffering financial shortfall.

38. Mr D said the DWP’s August 2020 MR decision to backdate his enhanced PIP award (now including the enhanced rate for daily living needs) to 31 October 2019 meant it should retrospectively view him as being entitled to SDP from this date.

39. He tells us the DWP should then have carried out supersession because he was now entitled to SDP from 31 October 2019. Supersession refers to the process of retrospectively changing an existing benefit decision. The DWP can use this mechanism where there is a change in the applicant’s circumstances which impacts upon their existing benefit decision.

40. Mr D said supersession should take into consideration his recent change in circumstances, i.e. his PIP benefit changes and his resulting entitlement to SDP.

41. As a result, Mr D said the DWP should either move him back to legacy benefits like income related Employment Support Allowance (IR ESA), for example, which would provide similar support to UC without the financial shortfall because it would incorporate SDP, or, provide him with the transitional payment to make up for any financial shortfall caused by his move to UC.

42. We have considered whether there are any indications of maladministration in the DWP’s October 2019 PIP decision making.

43. The DM guide, part 01301, says its DMs should approach claims objectively by carefully considering the evidence and, from that evidence, establish the facts of the case before reaching any decision.

44. Our Principles of Good Administration say in their decision making, public bodies should have regard to the relevant guidance. Decision making should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones and balance the evidence appropriately.

45. Mr D said the October 2019 PIP assessment was flawed because Atos used an assessor who was not knowledgeable about his condition. He also claims Atos refused to accept his evidence in support of his disability.

46. Historically, Atos carried out assessments of applicants claiming disability benefits on behalf of the DWP. The DWP ended its contract with Atos in 2024.

47. We recognise Mr D is concerned the Atos assessor he saw in October 2019 was not knowledgeable of FND and felt this was a key reason why their assessment was later overturned by MR in August 2020.

48. Atos primarily used healthcare professionals such as nurses, paramedics, physiotherapists and occupational therapists to carry out their assessments. Doctors rarely carried out these assessments because the role was one of evaluating the functional impact of a claimant’s health condition or disability against set criteria, rather than diagnosing or treating a specific condition.

49. Under these circumstances, a healthcare professional did not need to have a detailed knowledge of a particular health condition. This is because the healthcare professional would only be giving a limited view, in terms of using their clinical knowledge, to assess daily living and mobility activities against set criteria.

50. In considering the claim, the DWP would consider both the Atos report and any other evidence the claimant provided, including evidence from specialists in a particular clinical area (such as letters from consultants).

51. For this reason, we do not consider Mr D’s claim that the Atos assessor who did not have knowledge of FND is indicative of maladministration on the part of the DWP in considering his claim.

52. We consider this approach is in line with our Principles of Good Administration. This is because the DWP reviewed the evidence available to it regarding Mr D’s functional abilities, as assessed by Atos, and was able to consider evidence from healthcare professionals familiar with FND and Mr D’s specific case, if provided.

53. It is also not possible for us to reach a view, even on balance of probabilities, that the Atos assessor refused to accept Mr D’s evidence which caused the DWP to make mistakes. This is because we have seen no evidence to allow us to give a view on the interaction at that time.

54. With regard to the DWP’s consideration of his claim, we note he was able to provide any such evidence directly to the DWP, as explained above.

55. To better understand the reasons for the change in benefit entitlement decision, we asked the DWP why its October 2019 PIP decision was different to the one it reached following MR in August 2020.

56. It told us Citizens Advice, who was supporting Mr D at the time, provided it with additional evidence. This evidence included a letter from his representative, two letters from Mr D’s consultant psychiatrist, a letter from Mr D which provided more information about his needs in terms of PIP daily living activities, and a copy of his parking card for disabled people. The DWP also said it called Mr D to gather additional information.

57. The DWP said its August 2020 MR decision was able to award Mr D an enhanced rate of PIP for both mobility and daily living needs because the additional evidence allowed it to do so. It said such evidence was not available during its initial PIP consideration.

58. Having carefully considered the DWP’s explanation, we can see it acted in line with its DM guide and our Principles of Good Administration when it assessed Mr D’s PIP eligibility and later MR, based on the evidence available to it at the time it made those different decisions. We therefore see no indication of maladministration in the DWP’s handling of his PIP award.

59. Mr D is concerned that once MR awarded him the enhanced rate of PIP for both mobility and daily living needs in August 2020, and backdated this to October 2019, the DWP should then have carried out supersession.

60. He explains supersession would have taken into account his change of circumstances, which was that he was now in receipt of an enhanced rate of PIP. He says it should also consider that he was now entitled to SDP and should therefore have been moved onto a legacy benefit like IR ESA to accommodate this. He said supersession would therefore have supported his view that he should not have moved to UC.

61. To support this view, Mr D cites an amendment to section 4A of the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014. This is also set out in regulation 2(3) of the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) (SDP Gateway) Amendment Regulations 2019 which amended it. It says: ‘No claim may be made for Universal Credit on or after 16th January 2019 by a single claimant who, or joint claimants either of whom— • is, or has been within the past month, entitled to an award of an existing benefit that includes a severe disability premium; and • in a case where the award ended during that month, has continued to satisfy the conditions for eligibility for a severe disability premium.’

62. We have thought carefully about Mr D’s complaint that the DWP should have carried out supersession after the successful MR. We cannot say it should have done so as a remedy for maladministration in the way it reached his PIP entitlement decision in October 2019, as we have not seen any indications of maladministration for the reasons set out above.

63. We have therefore considered whether there were any other reasons it should have considered supersession, including Mr D’s reference to the Regulations cited above. In doing so, we have made a number of enquiries to the DWP.

64. The fact that the DWP awarded Mr D an enhanced rate of PIP backdated to October 2019 does not then mean he was automatically entitled to SDP. Entitlement is dependent upon meeting specific eligibility criteria. A key component of this is that the claimant must, in addition to PIP, be in receipt of a legacy means-tested benefit like IR ESA.

65. The ability to make a new claim for this legacy means-tested benefit came to an end for all applicants in 2018. This means access to IR ESA would not have been open to Mr D at the point of supersession and we do not see his change in circumstances surrounding his PIP award would have impacted on this.

66. We recognise Mr D cites the above regulation to support his view that he should never have moved to UC. As we have set out, he could not have been in receipt of a legacy means tested benefit before making his UC application. For this reason, we do not see the regulation impacts upon our view.

67. As such, we do not see anything to suggest the DWP made mistakes in considering Mr D’s request for supersession.

68. We cannot see any indications of maladministration in the way the DWP handled Mr D’s PIP benefit. For the reasons set out above, we have decided to take no further action in this part of his complaint.

The DWP declined videocalls

69. Mr D tells us the DWP unfairly refused to allow videocalls during the complaints process. He said this meant the DWP did not fully understand his complaint and did not therefore consider or respond to the concerns set out at paragraph 12 of our statement.

70. As part of our primary investigation, we discussed these matters with Mr D and the DWP. We also obtained evidence from both parties to get a clearer idea on their respective positions in order to reach a view in this part of his complaint.

71. The DWP has since told us that Mr D did not ask for videocalls and his agreed reasonable adjustment was for telephone contact.

72. In this section, we will carefully consider Mr D’s concerns that the DWP’s refusal to allow videocalls meant it did not correctly understand his complaint.

73. It is important to set out here that we are not giving a view in terms of the DWP’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010). Only a court can give a view on whether an organisation acted in line with its legal obligations under the EA 2010.

74. Instead, we will consider whether the DWP acted in line with applicable guidance and standards.

75. Our Principles of Good Complaint Handling say public bodies should ensure their complaint handling arrangements are easily accessible to their customers.

76. The DWP’s reasonable adjustment guidance sets out how staff should recognise and record a reasonable adjustment.

77. We can see the DWP provided a complaint response on 19 February 2021 which addressed Mr D’s concerns around incorrect UC payments, incorrect advice around claiming UC without the need to submit a medical certificate, a real time information (RTI) dispute, delays in conducting a work capability assessment (WCA) and a lack of call backs when he asked for them.

78. An RTI dispute is where a claimant believes the earnings reported to the DWP via the RTI system is incorrect. The RTI system is a payroll reporting system in the UK that requires employers to submit employee pay and tax information to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) each time they pay their employees.

79. Because UC is calculated based on someone’s income, this means an incorrect RTI sum can affect the amount of UC the claimant receives.

80. A WCA is a key part of the UC claim process. It determines how much a claimant’s health condition or disability affects their ability to work and informs the decision as to how much UC they will receive.

81. We can see Mr D wrote to the DWP in July 2021 to explain he was dissatisfied with its responses. He said he had a disability and needed a reasonable adjustment to deal with this matter over the phone. We understand that Mr D was asking the DWP to take his complaint details over the phone rather than him having to write to it.

82. Mr D spoke with the DWP again later that same month. At that time, the DWP took details of Mr D’s complaint concerning his local jobcentre and his case manager.

83. The DWP responded in writing to Mr D’s concerns on 23 August 2021. It set out its position in response the incident he described at his local jobcentre. It also responded to Mr D’s complaint that his case manager refused to allow him to make his online UC claim as a telephone claim instead.

84. Applicants typically manage their UC benefit via an online UC journal. The DWP can change an online UC claim to a telephone claim, which means it is managed via telephone calls to the UC helpline rather than using the online UC journal.

85. We have seen no evidence to suggest Mr D mentioned videocalls during his various complaints in 2021 or, for the most part, in 2022. His focus at this stage appears to be on telephone contact. This applies to both access to his benefits and the way in which he wanted DWP staff to communicate with him when he complained.

86. We viewed a DWP call log dated 16 December 2022. This describes a call it had with Mr D in which the DWP call handler acknowledged the complaints it had received from him about his ESA and UC claims.

87. The DWP call handler noted Mr D said during this call that the DWP previously agreed to do a videocall if their call was going to be ‘lengthy’. The DWP call handler explained that they were unaware of this agreement.

88. We have seen a further DWP call log dated 11 January 2023 and it appears to be a follow-on call to the one we described above. This callback was to further discuss Mr D’s ESA and UC claims.

89. The DWP call handler notes that they confirmed to Mr D that they had a reasonable adjustment in place to communicate with him by phone. They said they had reviewed previous contact and could not see they had agreed to videocalls.

90. The DWP’s call note reports Mr D insisted a judge had agreed a reasonable adjustment for the DWP to provide him with videocalls if the call was to last more than ten minutes. He also said the DWP’s lawyers were aware of this agreement.

91. The DWP call handler advised Mr D that they were unaware of this and the only reasonable adjustment they had in place was for telephone contact.

92. We can see the DWP call handler kept checking whether Mr D was happy to continue with the call. This appears to be in response to what he had said about calls lasting more than ten minutes.

93. The DWP call handler reported Mr D ended this call early after becoming frustrated that they were not aware of the videocall arrangement he said had been reached with the DWP’s lawyers.

94. The DWP told us there was no agreement with its legal team concerning videocalls.

95. Mr D tells us he took legal action against the DWP in April 2022. He explains he settled the claim before it reached a judge by way of a Part 36 offer. This is a formal settlement proposal under Part 36 of the civil procedure rules in England and Wales which is designed to encourage parties to resolve disputes before trial.

96. Mr D said the DWP’s lawyers promised during these proceedings that in future he would be allowed videocalls, but this did not happen.

97. We can see the DWP reached an agreement with Mr D via Part 36 offer to change his online UC claim to a phone claim and pay him a financial remedy. The reasonable adjustment for telephone contact appears to have been implemented as part of his online UC claim becoming a phone claim.

98. We have reviewed the court documents relating to Mr D’s legal claim against the DWP and we can find no reference to videocalls. The claim is about telephone contact only.

99. Mr D appears to have mentioned videocalls in calls to the DWP in late 2022 and early 2023. His mention of videocalls does not appear to be a request for this kind of contact. Rather, he appears to have been telling the DWP call handlers that such an arrangement should be in place following legal action.

100. As we have set out above, there is no evidence Mr D included videocalls as part of his legal claim against the DWP, or that the DWP agreed to provide them during those proceedings.

101. The DWP agreed via Part 36 offer to change his UC online claim to a telephone claim as Mr D had asked. It also appears to have put a reasonable adjustment in place for telephone contact, which its call handlers referenced in the calls discussed above.

102. Having considered all the available evidence, we have seen nothing to suggest the DWP failed to listen to Mr D during the complaints process.

103. It had a reasonable adjustment in place for telephone contact, which its call handlers appeared to act in line with. We have also seen reference to those call handlers being aware that if calls exceeded ten minutes, they may need to end the call and call him back when convenient.

104. The DWP appears to have addressed several of Mr D’s concerns around his benefits. There is no evidence we have seen which indicates a lack of videocalls meant it missed the matters set out in paragraph 12 of this statement.

105. We cannot therefore see an indication of maladministration in relation to how the DWP handled Mr D’s complaint. We can see, overall, that it appears to have acted in line with our Principles of Good Complaint Handling and its reasonable adjustment guidance.

106. We discussed Mr D’s concerns with the DWP and asked whether it was prepared to put more support in place for him in the way he describes.

107. The DWP said it does not currently have the capacity for its complaint handling staff to use videocalling software so cannot offer this service to Mr D. The DWP said it has thought about other ways it can help.

108. It suggested that it could arrange for Mr D to attend an appointment at his local jobcentre where DWP staff could discuss and record any adjustments to support his condition. It said he could bring a representative with him to support this discussion if he wanted.

109. The DWP also said Mr D previously had the ability to attend the local jobcentre to obtain print outs of benefit notifications and letters. It said it would consider offering this service again if it helped Mr D.

110. It added there was also the possibility of involving a local Disability Employment Adviser. It said these advisers may be of help to Mr D as they have considerable expertise in the application of adjustments and specialist support.

111. We are pleased the DWP has given thought to how it may help Mr D. We accept there may be technical limitations to what it can offer, but it is reassuring that it is actively thinking of alternative routes which may be of use to Mr D.

112. If Mr D would like to take the DWP up on this offer, he should let us know and we will ask the DWP to get in touch with him.

ICE

113. We will consider each of Mr D’s concerns about ICE’s handling separately, where possible. Where elements are closely related, we will address them collectively.

ICE wrote to the wrong address and refused to consider his concerns 114. Mr D said ICE wrote to the wrong address in 2021 and again in 2023 which meant he did not have the opportunity to comment on its proposed scope before it started its investigation.

115. He adds that when he contacted ICE to explain it was looking into the wrong issues, it ignored him.

116. ICE acknowledged it did not write to the correct address in 2021 and provided an apology for this. ICE said it did not ignore Mr D and was clear about what matters it was able to investigate.

117. Our Principles of Good Administration say public bodies should be open and accountable. They should provide clear, accurate and complete information to their customers about the scope of complaints and what they can or cannot do.

118. Our Principles of Good Administration also say where public bodies have made mistakes they should take steps to put matters right. In many cases we recognise an explanation and apology will be sufficient.

119. ICE sent a Complaint Agreement Letter (CAL) to Mr D on 21 September 2021 by post. A CAL sets out what ICE is proposing to investigate and gives the complainant ten working days to provide comments.

120. Mr D called ICE on 9 November 2021 to make it aware that he had only just received its CAL. ICE had closed his case by this stage but agreed to reopen it.

121. ICE tells us Mr D emailed it on 18 November 2021 with an attached email from HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). It said this email noted HMCTS had sent an appeals decision to Mr D’s new address, and this was different to the one ICE held at that stage.

122. It said it sent further correspondence to Mr D by post in January 2022, but this was returned by Royal Mail in March as ‘addressee gone away’. ICE said it checked what address the DWP held for Mr D and found it was the same as the one on HMCTS’s email, which Mr D previously supplied.

123. ICE said HMCTS’s email should have prompted it to make enquiries and confirm Mr D’s address. ICE apologised during the complaints process for this error.

124. We agree there is an indication of a failing here, as ICE did not act in line with our Principles of Good Administration in sending correspondence to an incorrect address.

125. Having carefully considered Mr D’s concerns, and the likely impact of ICE’s error, we have not seen any indication that the CAL going to the wrong address in 2021, nor any paperwork ICE may have sent to the wrong address in 2023, had a material impact upon what it would investigate.

126. This is because we now know Mr D wanted ICE to investigate the matters set out in paragraph 12 of this statement. However, ICE could not have considered these complaints because they had not first completed the DWP’s complaints process.

127. Having looked at the DWP’s complaint responses through 2021 and 2022, we can see ICE’s CALs accurately reflected those matters which had completed its complaints process and which it was therefore able to investigate at that time.

128. We recognise Mr D likely experienced some frustration when ICE sent correspondence to the wrong address in 2021. With that impact in mind, we can see ICE acknowledged its mistake and provided an apology, in line with our Principles of Good Complaint Handling. We can see this is proportionate to put right what went wrong.

129. We acknowledge Mr D’s account that this happened again in 2023, but we have seen no evidence this complaint was made to ICE. As such, we are unable to provide further comment on this separate matter.

130. As we have described above, even had those CALs been sent to the correct address in 2021 and 2023, we have not seen anything to suggest it would have resulted in any material change to the matters ICE would go on to investigate.

131. This view also extends to Mr D’s concern that ICE refused to acknowledge his concerns during the scoping stage.

132. Mr D tells us ICE wrongly scoped his complaint and would not listen to him when he tried to make it aware of what he wanted to complain about.

133. We have seen a call note with ICE dated April 2024. While this call note took place after ICE had started its investigation, we can see the ICE call handler acknowledged Mr D disagreed with what they had scoped. They then noted that they reviewed the evidence from the start of his benefit claim with the DWP and identified those matters it could investigate.

134. We appreciate Mr D was both upset and frustrated that ICE disagreed with him about the matters it would investigate.

135. We cannot see ICE ignored Mr D; rather, it appears to have listened to what Mr D told it, considered his request, and shared its decision with him. It explained its decision and set out what it could investigate and made it clear that it could not look outside of those matters.

136. This resulted in ICE investigating matters which had completed the DWP’s complaints process, but, as we have set out above, they were not the matters to which Mr D wanted answers.

137. Overall, we can see ICE acted in line with our Principles of Good Administration and have therefore decided to take no further action in these elements of Mr D’s complaint.

ICE declined videocalls

138. Mr D tells us ICE refused to videocall him in line with his requested reasonable adjustment. He said this led to misunderstanding around what he wanted to complain about.

139. ICE said for a reasonable adjustment under the EA 2010 it would need to see a person had a disability which necessitated change to its normal procedures in order for that person to access its service.

140. It said this was not the case with Mr D. It said it had recorded that his preferred method of contact was by telephone and that letters should be issued by post. It said this contact method was consistent with the reasonable adjustment the DWP had already put in place for him.

141. As a result, it said there was no requirement for it to change the way it communicated with him.

142. As we set out earlier in our statement, it is not our role to give a view on an organisation’s legal obligations under the EA 2010. This would be for a court to consider. Instead, we can give a view in relation to applicable guidance and policy.

143. Our Principles of Good Complaint Handling are also applicable here alongside the DWP’s reasonable adjustment guidance set out at paragraphs 75 and 76 of this statement. ICE is under the umbrella of the DWP which means some of its guidance and policy are also applicable to ICE.

144. We have reviewed ICE’s consideration of Mr D’s request for a reasonable adjustment. We are not satisfied the evidence shows sufficient detail of ICE’s consideration of how Mr D’s disability may impact upon his access to its service.

145. We therefore cannot give a view on the robustness of its consideration. We view this as an indication of a failing as it did not carry out a robust consideration, or in carrying out such a consideration it failed to document it, ICE has not acted in line with our Principles of Good Complaint Handling and the DWP’s reasonable adjustment guidance.

146. Having carefully thought about how Mr D told us ICE’s handling affected him, we cannot see this impacted upon him in the way he describes.

147. This is because he tells us a lack of videocalls, which he had requested as a reasonable adjustment, caused ICE to misunderstand his complaint. In turn, this misunderstanding led to frustration and distress.

148. We cannot see a lack of videocall contact led to ICE misunderstanding Mr D’s complaint, nor that a videocall might have resulted in ICE summarising the complaint in the way Mr D wanted to include matters which were not yet ready for its consideration.

149. As we have set out in the previous section of this statement, ICE could only investigate those matters which had completed the DWP’s complaints process, and it appears ICE had explained this to Mr D.

150. We therefore cannot see any lack of detail in ICE’s consideration of Mr D’s reasonable adjustment led to any misunderstanding causing the frustration and distress he describes at paragraph 17 of this statement.

151. We have decided to take no further action in Mr D’s complaint.

152. We appreciate Mr D continues to be upset and distressed by his experience and recognise our decision will likely come as a disappointment. We hope our statement clearly sets out our decision and provides some clarity and reassurance in these matters.

1. We thank Mr D for bringing his complaint to our Office and we have carefully considered it. We also acknowledge it has taken some time for us to reach our decision, so we would like to thank Mr D for his patience while we carried out our primary investigation.

2. We can see the DWP acted in line with applicable guidance and standards in the way it handled his Personal Independence Payment (PIP).

3. We can also see the DWP acted in line with applicable guidance and standards when it took no further action following Mr D’s successful mandatory reconsideration (MR) in August 2020.

4. The DWP handled Mr D’s complaint, alongside his reasonable adjustment requests, in line with applicable guidance and standards. We have seen no evidence to suggest its contact method during the complaints process caused it to misunderstand Mr D’s complaint.

5. ICE sent some correspondence to the wrong address in 2021. We can see it acknowledged this mistake and apologised. We think this apology is proportionate to put right what went wrong.

6. We are unable to give a view on Mr D’s complaint about ICE sending correspondence to the wrong address in 2023. Although we cannot give a view as to whether there are any errors in ICE’s handling of this correspondence, we have not seen that any alleged errors negatively impacted upon ICE’s investigation as Mr D describes.

7. We see ICE handled Mr D’s complaint in line with applicable guidance and standards.

8. We have not seen that ICE documented its consideration of Mr D’s reasonable adjustment request in any detail. We therefore cannot give a view on the robustness of its consideration. We view this as an indication of a failing.

9. Having thought carefully, we cannot see this led to the impact on Mr D that he describes. Our below statement sets out our rationale in more detail.

10. For this reason, we have decided to take no further action in Mr D’s complaint.

11. We recognise Mr D has been through a great deal in the last few years and understand our decision to take no further action may come as a disappointment. We are sorry for any additional upset this may cause. We hope our statement clearly sets out how we reached our decision.