Department for Work and Pensions

3. Mr X complains about the service provided by the DWP in relation to his request for information about his SP between September 2022 and July 2024. Specifically, he says communication was poor and the redress payment of £175 made by the DWP was insufficient to reflect the impact that these failings had on him and his family.

4. As a result of this, Mr X says the DWP has not sufficiently recognised the distress and worry the failings caused him and his family over a three-year period.

5. As an outcome of his complaint Mr X would like the DWP to offer him further financial compensation.

6. Customers who have already claimed their SP can choose to defer it. This is known as ‘de-retirement’, and this can only be done once. A deferred SP statement details what a decision like deferral has done (and will do) to the value of the SP and allows customers to make decisions about their SP and retirement plans.

7. Mr X became eligible for SP in November 2014 and received SP payments until he de-retired in November 2020. On 14 September 2022, Mr X requested a statement of his deferred SP.

8. The DWP advised that it issued the statement on 11 November 2022; however, Mr X did not receive it, as his address details were not up to date.

9. On 9 November 2022, Mr X contacted the DWP to inform it that he wished to re-retire. He was sent form BR1, which he completed and returned to indicate he wished to claim his SP again.

10. On 5 December 2022, Mr X contacted the DWP again to advise that he wished to defer his SP once more. He was informed that, if a payment was issued before his claim was stopped, he could return it.

11. On 19 December 2022, an SP payment was made into Mr X’s account. He wrote to the DWP to ask how he should return the payment, as he wished to defer his pension. The DWP did not respond.

12. In January 2024, Mr X contacted the DWP on multiple occasions to request a pension deferral forecast and a lump sum calculation but did not receive a response.

13. Mr X was able to contact the DWP on 17 May 2024. During this contact, it was identified that his SP claim remained open, despite his earlier request to defer his pension. As a result, the DWP was unable to provide a deferral statement. Mr X agreed to return the payment received in December 2022 so that the claim could be closed and a deferral statement issued.

14. The payment was returned to the DWP on 2 July 2024. The DWP then issued a deferral statement on 9 July 2024, followed by a deferred lump sum calculation on 18 July 2024. Mr X attempted to contact the DWP by telephone for an explanation of the calculation but was unable to get through.

15. The DWP contacted Mr X on 30 July 2024 and provided an explanation of the lump sum calculation.

18. When we consider a complaint, we look at whether the organisation has acted in line with applicable guidelines and standards of service. If it has not, we consider if there are signs the event(s) complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so, we can see the DWP did not always act in line with applicable guidelines and standards, but that it has already done enough to put right the impact of these events on Mr X.

19. We can see that the DWP did not handle Mr X’s query about his SP as it should. Mr X, the DWP and ICE agree that there were errors in the way it managed his query and communicated with him. Specifically, ICE agrees that the DWP delayed providing Mr X with the SP deferral statement and did not always act on his requests for information.

20. Having reviewed the evidence available to us, we agree that there are indications the DWP did not act in line with its Customer Charter, which says it will ‘provide you with the correct decision, information or payment’ and ‘deal with your request the first time you contact us, or as soon as we can’. Its actions were not in line with our Principles of Good Administration which say public bodies should be ‘customer focused- dealing with people helpfully, promptly and sensitively’, and ‘responding to customers’ needs flexibly’. As such, we have considered the likely impact to Mr X and what the DWP has done to put things right for him.

21. Our Principles of Good Complaint Handling and our Central Government Complaint Standards, referred to in our ‘evidence’ section, say organisations should identify instances where things have gone wrong, or where its services have had an unfair impact, and take responsibility for these. It may be appropriate for organisations to consider offering remedies which could be solely, or a combination of, an apology, explanation, remedial action, improvement to systems or procedures, or financial payments. In this case, the DWP apologised and provided a financial remedy.

22. In its complaint response, the DWP acknowledged and apologised for instances where it failed to respond to Mr X or when it provided delayed responses. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to Mr X, the DWP offered a consolatory payment of £175.

23. We can see from the DWP’s financial redress guide (referred to in our ‘evidence’ section above) consolatory payments are considered where the customer has suffered injustice or hardship arising from poor handling by an organisation. The payment is awarded under the DWP’s special payment scheme. ‘The purpose of the special payment scheme is, wherever possible, to return the individual to the position they would have been in but for the maladministration. If this cannot be achieved the aim is to provide redress that is reasonable and proportionate in light of the individual circumstances of the case’.

24. The DWP’s special payment scheme is discretionary; that is, it is for the DWP to decide whether to make such a payment and, if so, the amount to be awarded. The guidance sets out a range within which consolatory payments may be made, and we note that the sum of £175 falls within this range. In considering how the DWP exercised this discretion, we can see it thought about its poor handling of Mr X’s requests and the delays and errors it made in communication on multiple occasions.

25. We consider that, in Mr X’s case, the impact of the poor communication and delays in providing the requested information appropriately falls within the category for consolatory payments set out in the DWP’s financial redress guidance. This is because the impact to him is a period of frustration and distress. Mr X tells us that £175 is not enough to put things right. This is because he says the frustration and distress were ongoing, over a long period of time and did not allow him to plan for his re-retirement.

26. We are sorry to hear the delay in receiving the deferred SP statement caused Mr X frustration and distress, particularly given the importance of this information when making decisions about re-retirement. We are satisfied the DWP acknowledged the delay and the service failure, and that it made a payment of £175 to recognise the inconvenience and distress this caused. This amount is consistent with the ranges set out in its guidance for cases where there has been a delay, but no clear evidence of direct financial loss.

27. We have carefully considered Mr X’s view that the delay affected his ability to plan for his re-retirement. We appreciate his concerns here. Having reviewed the evidence carefully, we have not seen anything to suggest that the delay led to a specific and measurable financial loss. Neither can we reach a view on the balance of probabilities as to what choices about his employment and finances Mr X would have made, had the DWP shared information with him more promptly, as this would be speculation on our part. The decision about when to claim a deferred SP remains a matter of personal choice, and the rate at which a deferred pension increases is fixed and publicly available. What we can say is that the delays in providing the information caused Mr X distress, which the remedy provided by DWP puts right.

28. In view of the above, we are unable to conclude that the delay caused a more significant injustice to Mr X than already recognised by the DWP and ICE and so we have not seen any suggestion that the DWP has failed to consider his request for remedy in line with applicable guidelines and standards.

29. In considering Mr X’s case, we have also referred to our own Guidance on Financial Remedy. The amount of redress paid by the DWP is in line with our severity of injustice scale, which is used to determine an appropriate level of payment based on the severity of the impact the error has had on the individual. Having considered the impact we can see the DWP’s errors caused to Mr X, as summarised above, we can see £175 is appropriate to put right that impact, and it is in line with remedies we have recommended in similar cases of injustice.

30. For the reasons above, we consider the DWP has acted in line with its own guidance, and ours, in providing a remedy appropriate to put right the impact its mistakes had. We will therefore take no further action.

31. We appreciate this has been a difficult time for Mr X, and so we hope we have explained the consideration we have given in reaching our decision and clearly outlined the reasons for it. We would like to thank Mr X for bringing his concerns to our attention.

1. We have carefully considered Mr X’s complaint about the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Mr X says the DWP delayed sending him his state pension (SP) statement in September 2022 and there was poor communication about the matter between September 2022 and July 2024. He says the DWP acknowledged the failings; however, it did not pay him sufficient financial remedy. We recognise the stress and worry these events would have caused Mr X and his family.

2. After carefully considering the evidence available to us, we have found indications that the DWP made errors in handling Mr X’s requests and there were delays and errors in its communication with him. However, we consider the DWP has already done enough to put right the impact of these events on Mr X. As such, we have decided to take no further action. We explain the reasons for our decision below.