Department for Work and Pensions

4. Mrs O complains that the DWP’s consolatory payments for delaying her Carer Premium between June 2019 and November 2021, did not adequately reflect the financial hardship caused, or the services she may have missed.

5. Mrs O says as the payment did not reflect the financial difficulties she faced, this added to her financial stress and negatively impacted her mental wellbeing.

6. In bringing her complaint, Mrs O is seeking further compensation and service improvements from the DWP.

7. In November 2019, the DWP awarded Mrs O underlying entitlement to Carers Allowance (CA) which made her eligible for a Carer Premium. At the time CA was awarded, the DWP did not notify its Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) department, which meant a Carer Premium was not awarded.

8. Carer’s Allowance is a financial payment to help people who provide at least 35 hours of care per week for a disabled person.

9. Underlying entitlement means you qualify for a benefit, but you cannot be paid it directly because you are already receiving another overlapping benefit (like a State Pension). It can in some cases help assist the claimant to access a passported benefit.

10. Passported benefits are services or benefits that someone automatically becomes eligible for because they receive another qualifying benefit. Examples include free prescriptions, help with dental costs and free eye tests.

11. The Carer’s Premium is extra money added to some existing means-tested benefits which provides an extra weekly payment to help with care costs.

12. In November 2021, the DWP calculated the arrears of the Carers Premium between June 2019 to November 2021 and paid these to Mrs O.

13. Mrs O says in August 2022, she spoke with an advocacy service who explained she may have been entitled to further benefits and compensation and helped her to complain to the DWP.

14. In September and November 2022, Mrs O submitted complaints to the DWP, stating that due to not having received the correct benefit, she felt she may have lost out on passported benefits during this time, and requested compensation for the errors made.

15. In May 2023, Mrs O's complaint was escalated to the DWP Complaints Team. The DWP responded to Mrs O in August and acknowledged errors and delays in awarding the Carer Premium. It awarded a consolatory payment of £150 for the inconvenience caused by the delay and apologised.

16. The DWP explained that Mrs O could have applied for passported benefits, while in receipt of her existing benefits at any time, and her eligibility would have been assessed.

17. In December 2023, Mrs O contacted the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) to complain about the outcome of her complaint with the DWP. ICE is the final stage for complaints about the DWP. It provides an independent review after you have completed the DWP’s complaint process, focusing on service shortcomings or errors.

18. Following discussions over the phone, ICE recommended a further consolatory payment of £150, and an additional apology to acknowledge the shortcomings identified in the handling of her complaint. ICE sent written confirmation of this to Mrs O and closed the complaint as resolved with her agreement.

19. In January 2024, the DWP wrote to Mrs O to formally acknowledge ICE’s recommendations and confirmed it would make the additional £150 consolatory payment.

20. In March, we received Mrs O’s complaint via her MP.

Consolatory payment

23. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and think the DWP acted in line with its guidance and made a reasonable decision regarding the amount if offered which appropriately reflects what happened.

24. Our Principles for Remedy say that ‘where maladministration or poor service has led to injustice or hardship, public bodies should try to offer a remedy that returns the complainant to the position they would have been in otherwise’.

25. Mrs O feels the £350 she was awarded in consolatory payments did not adequately reflect the financial hardship she experienced due to the errors and delays, or the passported benefits she believes she lost out on.

26. All parties have accepted that the DWP did not pay Mrs O the correct benefits between 2019 and 2021. We can see the DWP has since calculated and paid Mrs O the full amount she would have received for that period had she been awarded the benefit as she should.

27. The outstanding issue is whether the £350 in consolatory payments made by the DWP was reasonable given the delays and their impact on Mrs O.

28. The DWP and ICE uses guidance ‘Financial redress for maladministration’ (the guidance) outlines the circumstances in which consolatory payments may be awarded, for example, to recognise gross inconvenience, severe distress, or embarrassment caused by an error. Generally, these payments range from £50 to £500, although the guidance allows flexibility in setting the amount based on the individual circumstances and the degree and duration of the impact.

29. There is no scale to help staff determine what amount to award, but it explains that staff should take account of the degree and duration of the impact, rather than the scale of the error. It says, ‘similar case facts should give rise to similar remedies, unless the circumstances of the case can justify an alternative remedy’.

30. We can see the DWP explained to Mrs O that it acknowledged and accepted its errors and recognised the inconvenience caused to her. Considering this, initially it awarded a £150 consolatory payment for the impact of the delays in paying the correct benefit, and in responding to her compensation claim. It also offered an apology for its errors and delays.

31. We can see when Mrs O spoke with ICE, it recommended an additional consolatory payment of £150 and a further apology to acknowledge the shortcomings in handling her benefit claim. ICE confirmed to Mrs O in writing that she agreed this resolved her complaint at that time.

32. ICE also reviewed a further complaint made by Mrs O about the delays during the complaints process. ICE recommended the DWP make an additional £50 consolatory payment, which it accepted and arranged promptly, accompanied by another apology.

33. In total, the DWP has awarded £350 in consolatory payments alongside several apologies to Mrs O.

34. Considering the guidance and standards, the total payment made to Mrs O falls within the higher end of the typical range for consolatory payments (£50-£500). The DWP acknowledged its errors, apologised several times to Mrs O, and made payments that reflected the inconvenience and distress caused.

35. Mrs O remains unhappy with the awarded amount and believes that the payment should be higher, as she feels she suffered financial hardship and missed out on passported benefits. However, the DWP’s guidance emphasises that payments are made to recognise the impact of mistakes rather than the scale of the error. This approach was followed when the DWP considered Mrs O’s case.

36. Additionally, there is no legal obligation for the DWP to make special payments, as these are discretionary decisions. As such, we can only challenge this type of decision if we find that the DWP did not follow its guidance or made an unreasonable decision. In this case, we have not identified any evidence that shows the DWP failed to follow its own guidance or acted unreasonably.

37. Mrs O expressed concerns that the DWP’s delay caused her to miss out on passported benefits, such as free prescriptions and other entitlements, during the two-year period when she was not receiving the Carer Premium.

38. While it is clear that the DWP made errors in awarding Mrs O’s benefits, we have seen no evidence that Mrs O attempted to apply for or was denied passported benefits during this time. Eligibility for such benefits depends on an individual’s financial circumstances at the time of application, and an assessment would ordinarily have been carried out to determine this.

39. While we sympathise with her feelings on this matter, we cannot say with certainty whether she would have been eligible for these benefits or that those errors specifically caused her to miss out on additional entitlements.

40. We recognise that the delays and errors caused by the DWP had an impact on Mrs O’s financial situation and wellbeing, and we do not underestimate her distress. The DWP has acknowledged its mistakes and provided a total of £350 in consolatory payments. These payments, combined with an acknowledgement of its errors and multiple formal apologies, are consistent with the DWP’s guidance on financial redress.

41. Our view is that the DWP has acted reasonably and taken appropriate steps to remedy its failings in line with its guidance. We do not identified grounds to recommend a higher payment. We will take no further action on Mrs O’s complaint

42. Our decision does not diminish the fact that mistakes were made. Rather, it reflects the steps already taken by the DWP to rectify its errors and acknowledge their impact on Mrs O. We hope this decision helps provide some clarity and closure, and we wish Mrs O well for the future.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs O’s complaint about the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). We are sorry to hear of her financial hardship and the delays in her receiving the correct benefits.

2. We think that the DWP appropriately considered Mrs O’s request for compensation and decided on a sum that reasonably reflects the impact of its error. It followed relevant guidance when making its decision. We will therefore take no further action.

3. We will explain our decision in detail below. We hope this will help Mrs O to understand our decision and give some reassurance about what happened.