Department for Work and Pensions

3. Mr W complains about how the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) managed his claim for Universal Credit (UC) between December 2022 and May 2023. Specifically, he complains that the DWP sought to enforce attendance at mandatory appointments at the jobcentre despite his medical concerns.

4. Universal Credit is a government benefit scheme designed to help individuals who are on a low income or out of work.

5. Mr W says his physical and mental health were significantly impacted as a result of the action taken by the DWP.

6. In bringing the complaint Mr W is seeking the maximum compensation for the impact on his wellbeing.

7. Mr W claimed UC, a benefit which requires the claimant to adhere to a set of agreed-upon conditions, known as the claimant commitment (CC), in order to receive benefits. The CC outlines the responsibilities of the claimant, including availability to take part fully in jobcentre meetings, be available for and actively look for work, to report any changes of circumstances promptly, and the potential consequences of conditions not met.

8. Between May 2022 and September 2022, Mr W successfully attended appointments at his jobcentre and took part in a phone review of his circumstances via his landline.

9. In November 2022, Mr W informed the jobcentre that he was unable to physically attend its premises due to the cleaning materials used (introduced as a COVID-19 precaution), which he advised aggravated a pre-existing medical condition. In response, the DWP agreed to contact Mr W by phone for his mandatory appointments as an adjustment to his CC.

10. In November, Mr W could not be contacted for a commitment review via his phone and so the jobcentre rescheduled the call for December.

11. Several further calls to Mr W throughout December were unsuccessful, and as a result he was marked as ‘failed to attend’ his mandatory appointments. At the end of December, the DWP referred Mr W’s case on to a Decision Maker and a low-level sanction was placed on Mr W’s UC claim.

12. Mr W contacted the jobcentre via his online UC journal in December to request a new phone appointment. The DWP arranged a phone appointment for January 2023. Further attempts to contact Mr W were unsuccessful, and the sanction remained in place.

13. Throughout early 2023, the DWP continued efforts to contact Mr W via his landline for mandatory interviews but was unable to establish contact. It informed Mr W that unless he provided an alternative contact number or resolved the issues with his current phone line, he would need to attend the jobcentre in person. Mr W did not provide an alternative number and did not attend the jobcentre for the appointments that were arranged.

14. At the end of February, Mr W’s MP contacted the DWP about Mr W having been sanctioned for the previous five months. The DWP responded a few weeks later.

15. During March, Mr W lodged an appeal with HM Courts and Tribunal Service against the DWP’s decision to sanction him.

16. In April 2023, Mr W’s new work coach advised him that the jobcentre had ceased mandatory desk cleaning, which the DWP believed should no longer pose a barrier to attendance. Mr W reiterated that he could not attend the jobcentre and stated that he had no alternative phone number.

17. At the beginning of May, Mr W’s MP again wrote to the DWP for further clarification of its response.

18. At the end of May, a DWP work coach attempted to contact Mr W using a mobile phone, instead of the usual jobcentre line. A successful call took place, and the sanction was ended. UC arrears for the period from mid-December 2022 to mid-May 2023 were subsequently credited to Mr W’s account.

19. The DWP also replied to the MP at this time and confirmed Mr W’s sanction had been lifted following a successful call with arrears credited to his account. It explained should Mr W remain unhappy he should escalate his complaint to ICE.

20. In September 2023, the Tribunal ruled in Mr W’s favour, resulting in additional arrears being paid to him for the remainder of the sanction period.

21. In October 2023, Mr W wrote to the DWP and the Independent Case Examiner (ICE).

22. Mr W complained to ICE at the end of February 2024. ICE sent its report to Mr W at the beginning of October.

23. Following continued engagement from Mr W, in June 2025, ICE confirmed that its position remained unchanged.

24. In July 2025, Mr W made a complaint to us via his MP.

27. 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 have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.

28. Mr W says between December 2022 and May 2023, the DWP attempted to force him to attend mandatory appointments at the jobcentre for his claim of UC. He says he could not attend the jobcentre in person due to the cleaning chemicals it used during COVID-19 as this aggravated a medical condition he suffers from and deemed it unsafe.

29. The DWP explained in its responses that Mr W said he could not attend face to face appointments in the jobcentre due to the cleaning materials used. It therefore agreed to contact Mr W by phone as an exceptional circumstance.

30. As it could not contact Mr W via the phone number held on his UC account, it arranged appointments in the jobcentre. DWP says he did not attend the appointments.

31. We considered whether the DWP accounted for Mr W’s circumstances when arranging his mandatory appointments.

32. GOV.UK guidance says claimants of UC must agree to accept and adhere to a ‘claimant commitment’ which includes that they attend mandatory appointments to discuss work-related progress. The guidance also explains that claimants must make themselves available and contactable as part of their responsibility.

33. The GOV.UK website for UC also explains that mandatory appointments usually take place in person at a jobcentre, although phone meetings can be arranged in exceptional circumstances.

34. Under UC guidance, it is the claimant's responsibility to ensure their claimant commitment is met. This includes attending mandatory appointments and ensuring they can be contacted as required.

35. We can see when Mr W informed the DWP in November 2022, that he could not attend in-person appointments, it recognised his exceptional circumstances. It agreed to conduct his appointments by phone instead of requiring him to attend in person.

36. Between December 2022 and May 2023, we can see that the DWP took reasonable steps to help Mr W meet his mandatory appointments which included: • offering to contact him through an alternative phone number • advising him to check his phone for withheld numbers or report his phone issues as a potential fault • going beyond its usual process by making calls to him via a mobile phone temporarily to address the issue.

37. As the DWP was unable to establish consistent contact with Mr W by phone, it also contacted him via his online journal. It said its cleaning procedures had been adjusted, specifically noting that cleaning materials causing him concern had been discontinued.

38. Our view is that the DWP accommodated Mr W’s concerns as it agreed to phone-based appointments instead of in-person attendance due to his health and demonstrates a reasonable level of flexibility to support him.

39. It also appears the DWP made reasonable efforts to contact Mr W via multiple channels to help ensure his availability and scheduled in-person meetings to fulfil its obligations under UC policy. We cannot see any indications that the DWP forced Mr W to attend appointments at the jobcentre or acted outside of its guidance in its handling of this matter.

40. After careful consideration, we do not believe the DWP acted unfairly or inappropriately in their handling of Mr W’s case. It has acted in accordance with relevant guidance and made reasonable efforts to accommodate Mr W’s circumstances. We therefore find no indications anything went seriously wrong.

41. We understand how difficult this situation has been for Mr W and recognise the impact this has had on Mr W’s wellbeing. We hope that our explanation has provided some clarity and reassurance about what happened and why these decisions were made. We sincerely wish Mr W all the best moving forward.

1. We have carefully considered Mr W’s complaint about the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). We are sorry to hear about the events Mr W has complained about and recognise the impact this has had on his wellbeing.

2. We have seen no indications that anything was wrong with the way in which the DWP communicated with Mr W about his mandatory appointments. We will explain our decision in detail below. We hope this will help Mr W to understand our decision and give some reassurance about what happened.