Department for Work and Pensions

6. Ms O complains that DWP mishandled her UC entitlement and subsequent reimbursement. Specifically, she complains that DWP: • incorrectly closed her UC claim in November 2021 • regularly failed to respond to her contact either in phone or in writing from between July and December 2023 • unnecessarily delayed paying her the arrears until December 2023 • misinformed her that it had lodged an appeal to the Tribunal decision.

7. She says that DWP’s decision to stop her UC left her in significant financial difficulty. She says she was left without the money she was entitled for over two years and incurred debts as a result. She says that she missed the opportunity to backdate a claim for council tax support which contributed to her debts. She says the mental impact this has caused was compounded when bailiffs became involved in the debt recovery. The entire experience has amplified what was already a difficult time for her and increased her stress and anxiety. She says this has had a severe impact on her physical health and well-being.

8. She would like DWP to pay compensation.

9. In November 2021, DWP closed Ms O’s UC claim. Ms O challenged this decision through to appeal.

10. The original appeal was not allowed in September 2022, but Ms O applied to the Upper Tribunal which set it aside in June 2023. This allowed her UC claim to be reopened.

11. HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) concluded in Ms O’s favour in July 2023. It issued a Decision Notice shortly after to both Ms O and DWP outlining the Upper Tribunal’s decision and what should happen next.

12. As of mid-July, Ms O still could not access her UC Journal and raised a complaint about the delays in processing her claim.

13. There is a record in DWP’s system outlining that its Appeals Team had sent a challenge to HMCTS in late-July. This was not correct as a request for a Written Statement of Reasons (WSOR) behind the decision had been sent. This is necessary to review before any potential appeal can be submitted.

14. A Complaints Manager responded in early-August outlining, amongst other points, that they had requested a WSOR and that they may yet appeal the Upper Tribunal decision. Ms O was unhappy as this meant her claim was further delayed.

15. It was not until early-November that DWP received a copy of the WSOR. DWP advised that this was being considered to see if a challenge would be accepted by HMCTS.

16. In December, DWP opted not to challenge the decision. It then reviewed Ms O’s UC claim and issued an arrears payment of £15,137.06 for the period from 21 October 2021 until 20 November 2023.

17. Ms O continued to pursue her complaints with DWP until it issued a final response in March 2024 following the involvement of the Special Payments Team. Ms O then escalated her complaint to the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) who provided its final response in December.

18. Ms O’s MP referred her complaint to us in February 2025.

Closure of UC claim

21. Mrs O complains that DWP incorrectly closed her UC claim in November 2021. She says that DWP’s decision was incorrect, as shown by the Tribunal overturning it, and that this left her without the UC she was entitled for an extended period of time resulting in financial difficulty.

22. DWP’s position is that its decision was reasonable given the evidence available to it at the time.

23. Similar to ICE’s role and powers, it is not for us to comment on whether benefit decisions were correct or not. The appropriate route to challenge this is via the Courts which Mrs O did successfully. We can, however, consider whether or not DWP’s process to reach that decision was appropriate.

24. Our Principles state that in decision making a public body should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones, and balance the evidence appropriately.

25. Ultimately, the Decision Maker closed Ms O’s UC claim at that time as they believed the capital held in the bank account could no longer be disregarded. Ms O’s second property continued to be disregarded as she had provided evidence of it remaining on the market. However, the profit Ms O’s ex-partner had made from the sale of a previous property and the fact that no new property had been purchased meant that the remaining capital could no longer be disregarded from October 2021. As a result, they took the decision to close her UC claim.

26. Ms O disagreed with this outcome and correctly appealed it. From our perspective and within the confines of what we can consider, it does appear as though DWP complied with our Principles. We can see that it has considered the evidence that Ms O provided and this is further supported by the fact that it accepted her second property could continue to be disregarded. It did not, though, feel convinced that the remaining capital could be the same after taking account of all of the available evidence.

27. We are glad to hear that Ms O’s appeal was successful and the money was eventually reimbursed to her. We know this decision had a significant impact on her and continues to do so to this day. Beyond this, while the Tribunal did reach a different decision to the DWP that does not mean that this initial decision was necessarily unreasonable. Therefore, based on the above, we find no indications of maladministration and will take no further action.

Failing to respond to contact

28. Ms O complains that DWP regularly failed to respond to her contact either in phone or in writing from between July and December 2023 and that it misinformed her it had lodged an appeal to the Tribunal decision. She says this amplified what was already a difficult time for her and increased her stress and anxiety. She says this has had a severe impact on her physical health and well-being.

29. DWP’s position is that it had initially informed Ms O it could only comment once it had heard further from HMCTS. Given this took several months and was outside of its control, it says there was nothing further it could reasonably add.

30. To properly address the issues around DWP’s communication, we need to set out what the Tribunal Procedure states about appeals. The Tribunal Procedure outlines that a decision will usually be shared by Decision Notice. This is not a detailed explanation of how the decision was reached but more of a summary sent to all parties. In order to appeal or even consider whether an appeal may be appropriate, the potential appellant must request a WSOR. This will then allow them to make an informed decision on whether an appeal may or may not be reasonable.

31. Our Principles outline how we expect organisations to act. To be customer focussed, we expect them to behave helpfully, communicate effectively, and use clear language.

32. As above, Ms O has outlined many instances where she says her contact was not responded to. We do not believe it would be proportionate to consider each individual instance so have looked at them collectively. Among this is her statement that it incorrectly told her DWP had lodged an appeal against the Court’s decision in July 2023.

33. The key reason for Ms O’s contact was for updates on when it would be implementing the Tribunal’s recommendations. On 19 July 2023, DWP wrote to Ms O outlining that it had not received the Court’s decision. It then responded further on 28 July to explain that the Appeals team had submitted a request for a WSOR to HMCTS. As established above, this must be completed before potentially submitting a challenge and is not a challenge itself. DWP also outlined in this contact that it would not be able to provide Ms O with any further update until it heard back from HMCTS.

34. Unfortunately, HMCTS did not provide the WSOR until it wrote to DWP and Ms O on 25 October some four months after it was initially requested. DWP had no control over the time this took, and this meant that during this period there was nothing substantial it could add to its initial 28 July email.

35. During this period, Ms O received responses from DWP on 4 August and 18 October. In each of these, they reiterated a WSOR had been requested, that they could not do more until HMCTS responded, and provided complaints details if Ms O was unhappy with how her case was being progressed.

36. Following receipt of the WSOR, Ms O sent further regular correspondence outlining that she wanted the arrears paying urgently. DWP advised on 11 November it could not provide a timetable until the Appeals Team had reached a decision on what to do next.

37. Ms O continued to send emails and raise concerns about the handling of her case. On 7 December, DWP decided not to appeal and issued the full arrears payment two days later. DWP then wrote to Ms O on 11 December to respond to the contact she had submitted following receipt of the WSOR. It explained that the Special Payments Team would be in touch to consider whether a consolatory payment was appropriate.

38. Ultimately, this was a difficult situation that was exacerbated at least in part by the time it took HMCTS to provide the WSOR. DWP’s initial contact in July alongside its early-August contact was correct. It outlined the next steps it had taken (requesting a WSOR) and that it could not provide anything further until this was received. As frustrating as it undoubtedly was for Ms O, DWP had nothing further that it could add to this as a result of following the Tribunal Procedure. Given all of the contact during this time was regarding the same issue we cannot see what DWP could or should have added to its initial contact.

39. From what we have seen, we believe DWP was complying with the Tribunal Procedures and, in doing so, also complied with our Principles. Its initial contact was communicated helpfully and effectively using clear language in that it could not add more until it had heard back from HMCTS. Ms O continued to contact for an update which is entirely understandable given the significant arrears she was waiting for. This does not mean that DWP’s contact was anything but reasonable, and we will take no further action.

Delay in paying arrears

40. Mrs O complains that DWP unnecessarily delayed paying her the arrears until December 2023. She says HMCTS issued the decision in July and the five month delay in issuing the arrears compounded the significant financial difficulty she had found herself in over the last two years. She says it amplified what was already a difficult time for her and increased her stress and anxiety. She says this has had a severe impact on her physical health and well-being.

41. We have already established the relevant part of the process for appealing a decision as set out in the Tribunal Procedure. What this also sets out is that an appeal must be submitted within one month after the date in which the WSOR is submitted. Also relevant to determine whether these were appropriate is the ADM. This is DWP’s guidance for Decision Makers and sets out what to do where DWP is considering an appeal. The ADM states that the Court’s decision is binding subject to appeal meaning essentially that DWP must comply with the decision unless it chooses to appeal.

42. Our Principles state that organisations should have regard to the relevant legislation. In this case, that would be the Tribunal Procedure.

43. Ms O is unhappy with the overall delay from July to December in paying her the arrears the Court ruled she was entitled to. In line with the ADM, DWP was under no obligation to make that payment while an appeal was being pursued. Requesting a WSOR is a necessary part of the appeal process and so it was not obligated to make this payment while it was awaiting this information. This was something that it requested from HMCTS in July and did not receive until October. It is very unfortunate that this provided to be the case but is not something that was in the power of DWP to resolve.

44. That said, there does appear to be a delay in issuing the payment once the WSOR is received. At the point it was received, the Tribunal Procedure sets out it had one month to reach a decision on whether or not to appeal. This deadline began the date HMCTS provided the WSOR (25 October) meaning it had until 25 November to reach that decision.

45. However, we can see that DWP did not reach a decision until 7 December some twelve days later. This means that DWP missed the deadline but continued to consider whether an appeal was appropriate anyway.

46. From what we have seen, we believe DWP has acted in line with the ADM by not issuing the payment immediately. However, there does appear to be a twelve-day delay in reaching the decision not to appeal and this is not in line with either the Tribunal Procedure or our Principles. We go on to consider the impact of this at the end of this statement.

Misinformed Ms O that it would challenge the Upper Tribunal decision

47. Mrs O complains that DWP misinformed her that it had lodged an appeal to the Tribunal decision. She says that DWP’s actions amplified what was already a difficult time for her and increased her stress and anxiety. She says this has had a severe impact on her physical health and well-being.

48. We have already outlined in paragraph 31 how we expect organisations to communicate with complainants in order to comply with our Principles. We believe this also applies to this aspect of Ms O’s complaint.

49. DWP were in touch with Ms O in July, August, November, and December regarding the outcome of the Tribunal. In its July and August contact, DWP outlined that it had requested a WSOR with a view to challenging the decision once received. The October contact echoed what it had said previously in that the WSOR remained outstanding and it could not say anything further until HMCTS provided. In none of these instances can we see DWP saying it had lodged an appeal – only that it was awaiting a WSOR and that it may in the future. This was a factual and accurate update to provide.

50. Beyond this, though, Ms O received a phone call on 13 November. In this call, the Complaints Manager explained that the WSOR was being reviewed by the Appeals Team and if a challenge was accepted by HMCTS then the Upper Tribunal would have to consider matters further.

51. While not explicitly stating an appeal had been lodged, we can understand how Ms O could have left that call with the impression that DWP had submitted one. The Complaints Manager indicated what the process would be beyond an appeal being submitted but at no point clarified that this had not yet been submitted and that (as proved to be the case) it may not be submitted at all. ICE highlighted that in its report and DWP acknowledged those findings as accurate and that its communication was not clear or effective.

52. Given the above, we believe DWP’s communication on this one point did not comply with our Principles. We have gone to consider the impact below.

Impact of delay in paying arrears (25 November to 7 December) and indication an appeal was lodged

53. Ms O claimed impact relates to her position that the overall delay in payment was inappropriate and not the much shorter period we have established above. It also extends to there being multiple instances dating back to around July of DWP indicating it had submitted an appeal.

54. She stated that DWP’s actions compounded the significant financial difficulty she had found herself in over the last two years. She says it amplified what was already a difficult time for her and increased her stress and anxiety. She says this has had a severe impact on her physical health and well-being..

55. Based on what we have established, we find the period when Ms O was impacted by DWP’s maladministration was shorter and more likely than not had a lesser impact. Having reviewed the evidence, we believe that Ms O likely had unnecessary distress and worry due to both the delay in issuing the arrears payment and the implication that an appeal had been lodged. However, the former here is likely confined to a twelve day period of delay rather than the five months she had initially claimed. With regard to the indication an appeal was lodged, this occurred in early November but Ms O received contact from HMCTS stating no such challenge had been received. This information would have greatly mitigated any distress and worry DWP may have caused with its unclear communication.

56. When calculating consolatory payment offers, both DWP and ICE uses the Guide as a starting point. It will then consider the merits of each individual case, while also having regard to previous comparable cases, before calculating an amount.

57. Section 5 of the Guide sets out the three special payment categories under which it can award financial redress: ex gratia special payment categories. Category 3 specifically relates to consolatory payments and clarifies that this would usually fall between £25 and £500. It does, however, explain that there is scope for lower or higher offers if the individual circumstances of the case warrants.

58. DWP’s initial consolatory offer of £75 was increased following ICE’s investigation to £100. We therefore believe that ICE’s recommendation is within the parameters established in the Guide. Therefore, given the likely impact this matter may have had on Ms O we believe that the consolatory payment is appropriate to put that impact right, and we will take no further action.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs O’s complaint and we have decided to take no further action.

2. Having reviewed the relevant evidence, we find that DWP appears to have complied with our Principles in how it considered Ms O’s Universal Credit (UC) claim.

3. Based on the evidence we have seen, we found that DWP delayed issuing Ms O with her arrears by twelve days and indicated an appeal had been lodged with the Courts. While this does appear to indicate maladministration, we consider that the steps taken by DWP following the ICE report are sufficient to put right the distress and worry she may have experienced as a result. This was in line with DWP’s Financial redress for maladministration.

4. Finally, we consider that DWP’s contact with Ms O was reasonable. While she sought several responses to her queries, DWP had outlined in July and August that it could not provide an update until it heard back from the Courts. This did not happen until late October. Therefore, we believe it communicated in line with our Principles of Good Administration.

5. We understand this has been a difficult and frustrating experience for Ms O. We know her experience has and continues to be difficult as she feels DWP’s actions have had a profound impact on her financial, emotional, and physical well-being. Our decision is in no way meant to detract from how significant these matters are to her.