Department for Work and Pensions

DWP

Mr A complains that in 2023 the DWP failed to assist him with costs relating to broadband provision despite saying it would.He also complains that in late 2023 and early 2024 the DWP failed to provide him with the assistance he needed to take a course despite saying it would.

Mr. A tells us that he has experienced distress, causing anxiety, depression, insomnia, and psychosis. He tells us this has prevented him from working.

Mr A would like an apology and a financial remedy.

ICE

Mr A complains that the ICE did not investigate his complaint despite him sending it in time.

Mr A says he is upset and disappointed by the ICE decision not to investigate and that has made his anxiety worse.

Mr A wants the ICE to investigate his complaint and provide a financial remedy.

6. In November 2022, Mr A told the DWP there were three, construction related, professional development courses he would like to complete that would help him return to work.

7. In March 2023, Mr A asked the DWP about its scheme that provided some people on Universal Credit with six months free broadband access.

8. In early April 2023, Mr A visited the job centre to confirm his interest in the scheme. When he had not heard from the provider by mid-April 2023 he contacted the job centre again. It said it would make enquiries. After returning to the job centre in early May 2023, Mr A agreed to sign up to the scheme. Unfortunately, because of an IT issue, the job centre was unable to provide him with a referral code which he needed for when he contacted the provider. It said it would call him when the IT issue was resolved. It did so and Mr A went to the job centre in late May 2023 to complete the process. Unfortunately, because he currently had an active broadband provision at home, he was unable to complete the process. This is because part of the eligibility criteria was that the claimant did not currently have broadband service.

9. In June 2023 he was told by the broadband service provider that he would need to pay £9.99 for the equipment to be delivered. In a journal message, he asked the DWP to transfer that money. When he spoke with the DWP it explained the scheme was a different one with a different provider, and he would get 12 months free service. Mr A told the DWP that he could not afford the £9.99 and wanted the six-month offer which did not require him to pay anything.

10. In July 2023, Mr A complained to the DWP via his MP about how it handled his request for broadband. His MP received a response in August 2023.

11. Also in July 2023, Mr A received a message in his journal to say that his application for two of the three courses had been successful. He went on to complete those.

12. In late October 2023 he spoke with the DWP and was told that his request for funding for the third course, Gold Card training (a construction industry skilled worker training) had been sent for consideration.

13. In November 2023, Mr C complained to the DWP via his MP about the handling of his request for the third course and how important that course was to his being able to get work. The DWP replied to his MP in January 2024 and explained that it had made an error in not telling Mr A that a decision had already been made on the third course and DWP could not fund it.

14. In January 2024, the DWP wrote to Mr A and told him that he could apply for an Advanced Learner Loan to help with the cost of training. Mr A complained to the DWP via his MP in March 2024 and received a response later that month. He was directed to the ICE if he remained dissatisfied.

15. Mr A wrote a letter to ICE dated 1 June 2024. When he did not hear from the ICE, he asked his MP to enquire on his behalf in February 2025. the DWP replied later that month and explained the ICE had not received the letter from Mr A and now he was outside its time limit for his complaint to be considered. The ICE wrote to him in July 2025 to confirm this and directed Mr A to our Office.

16. He brought his complaint to us in August 2025.

Broadband provision

17. Mr A complains that in 2023 the DWP failed to assist him with costs relating to broadband provision despite saying it would. DWP said it gave Mr A free broadband provision at no cost to him.

18. In March 2023, Mr A made enquiries about an offer that might be available to him to get free broadband provision through a scheme provided by the DWP and a national broadband provider. The scheme provided six months of free broadband after which the claimant could pay the provider to continue or give up the service. Mr A was not eligible for this offer as he already had broadband provision he was paying for and this offer was for people without broadband.

19. Instead, DWP signed him up for a different plan which offered 12 months free service however in June 2023 Mr A was told by the broadband service provider that he would need to pay £9.99 for the equipment to be delivered. In a telephone call Mr A told the DWP that he could not afford the £9.99 and was told by the call handler that if he did not want to pay it then he would need to be put on an alternative six-month scheme which did not require him to make a payment. Mr A said that was okay with him.

20. When he complained about the matter to a manager at the job centre, the decision was made to keep Mr A on the plan from the alternative provider but have the period reduced from 12 months to 10 months without him needing to pay the £9.99 fee. When Mr A complained about the matter to the DWP through his MP in July 2023, the DWP responded to say that it had confirmed with the manager at the job centre that the matter had been resolved.

21. DWP has told us that it does not have any specific guidance relating to the provision of broadband at that time other than it would have been considered under the guidance associated with the Flexible Support Fund (FSF – a locally held fund that aims to help UC claimants overcome barriers to employment). It had basic information of the two offerings which were the six months from provider 1 and the 12 months from provider 2. It gave us a copy of the leaflet from provider 1 that explained the offer it made.

22. DWP told us that if a person was out of work, they could ask their Jobcentre Plus work coach if they could apply. Eligibility would be determined on a case-by-case basis referring to the FSF ‘Barriers to work’ guidance which says:

The Flexible Support Fund should be considered to remove barriers that are hindering a claimant’s search for work

23. We have seen that DWP considered Mr A’s eligibility, reached a view that he was entitled to receive free broadband and offered him the option that was best suited to his situation. This is in line with the FSF guidance.

24. We can appreciate that Mr A was not expecting to be asked to pay towards the cost of the broadband service and that it came as a shock to him when he was asked to do so. We are sorry to hear of the distress this caused him.

25. Our Principles of Good Administration say:

In some cases, a novel approach will bring a better result or service, and public bodies should be alert to this possibility.

26. DWP did not ask Mr A to pay the £9.99 to get a broadband deal, it was the broadband provider. When Mr A raised this concern with DWP, it acted to amend the provider 2 offer to 10 months and Mr A did not have to pay anything towards it. This is in line with our Principles as it showed flexibility in its service and provided a good outcome for him. Based on this, we find DWP assisted in removing the broadband costs and there are no indications anything went seriously wrong.

27. We will not take any further action on this part of the complaint.

DWP failed to provide him with the assistance he needed to take a course

28. Mr A complains that in late 2023 and early 2024, the DWP failed to provide him with the assistance he needed to take a course despite saying it would. In early 2023, Mr A asked the DWP to fund three courses to help him return to work in the construction industry. It considered his request and in mid-July 2023 it agreed funding for two of the courses which he went on to complete. He followed up with the job centre in late October 2023 to ask about the third course, to enable him to qualify for a Gold CSCS Card. This card is designed for construction workers who have achieved a higher level of skills and competence in their trade and is for those who have an approved qualification.

29. He was told the request had been forwarded to the department that dealt with funding. He sent additional messages to enquire about the funding in early and late November 2023 and was told at the beginning of December 2023 that the request was still being considered. He wrote to his MP to explain his frustration and disappointment with the DWP and its failure to sort out the funding for the course.

30. His MP wrote to the DWP in mid-December 2023 and in early January 2024 he received a response. It explained that it had funded the first two courses through the Low Value Procurement fund (LVP) which provides opportunities for relevant training that will help claimants into work. The third course was an NVQ level 3 (A National Voluntary Qualification Level 3 covers more complex work and aims to help a person develop their supervisory skills). which could not be funded under an LVP. Only courses offered under the ‘Free courses for jobs’ provision on the National Careers Service website could be eligible. None met Mr A’s needs, so could not be funded.

31. To take the course he wanted to take, the DWP told Mr A he would need to apply for an Advanced Learner Loan (ALL), which is a loan to help with the costs of a course at a college or training provider in England.

32. In late January 2024, Mr A visited the job centre and asked about funding for the course and referred to the FSF. The notes say that he made reference to the letter of early January 2024 from the DWP to his MP and so the work coach he was dealing with asked him to bring a copy of that letter into the job centre as it was not currently on file.

33. After viewing the letter at the start of February 2024, the work coach sent a journal message to Mr A to explain that the course was not eligible to be funded through the FSF. Mr A responded to the work coach saying he had been told in the conversation in late January 2024 that the course would be covered by the FSF and he could enrol.

34. Our Principles of Good Administration state public organisations should behave helpfully and communicate effectively.

35. We looked at the evidence and cannot see that the work coach recorded that that would be the case. We can see that in its letter to Mr A’s MP of late March 2024, the DWP explains the work coach is no longer with the DWP and so they were unable to discuss the matter with them.

36. We cannot know with certainty what was discussed at the meeting at the end of January 2024. We can see that, as explained in the letter from the DWP in early January 2024, Mr A would need to apply for a loan to take the course and that he could also ask if the establishment providing the course if there were any grants available to cover the cost. There is the Adult Education Budget (AEB) which is a government-funded initiative in the UK which supports education and skills providers with funds to give out as grants to course applicants who meet certain criteria.

37. The FSF guidance says if no free provision is already in place locally then the FSF can be considered to pay for a course. The criteria are set out in the guidance where it says:

If the training costs under £150 is entirely classroom based and involves no practical training then a Barrier to Work training award should be considered. If it does not, you should make the award via the Low Value Provision (LVP) process.

38. The cost of a course to meet the criteria for a Gold Card application is approximately £1500, well above the threshold of the FSF. We have already seen that the course Mr A wanted to take did not meet the criteria for the LVP.

39. We acknowledge that this would have been very frustrating for Mr A as he had hoped he would be able to complete the requirements of the Gold Card to help him in his search for work.

40. We cannot establish whether DWP told Mr A that he could enrol on the course, irrespective of his eligibility. We found DWP considered Mr A’s eligibility in line with its guidance and found it could not fund the course he wished to complete. While we recognise this was disappointing for him, DWP explained different options for funding which Mr A could pursue. This is in line with our Principles.

41. Therefore, there are no indications anything went seriously wrong in this part of the complaint, and we will not take any further action.

ICE did not investigate his complaint to it

42. Mr A told us that he had complained in time to the ICE and was disappointed that it had not investigated his complaint. He also told us that the job centre had told him that it knew the ICE was investigating his complaint about it.

43. At the end of March 2024, the DWP told Mr A he could bring his complaint to the ICE if he remained dissatisfied with the DWP response.

44. The Guidance for bringing a complaint to the ICE says, ‘You must contact us within 6 months of receiving the final response’. This meant Mr A needed to submit his complaint to the ICE by the end of September 2024.

45. Mr A told us he wrote to the ICE at the beginning of June 2024, and he provided us with a copy of that letter. He told us that he contacted his MP in February 2025 when he did not receive a response from the ICE. His MP made enquiries. He was told that the ICE had not received Mr A’s letter and that it could not look at his complaint as it was now outside the six-month time limit. It went on to say that if Mr A could provide evidence of the posting of the letter, then he should share that with the ICE for it to consider.

46. Mr A told us that the additional cost of sending the letter through a tracked service was an unnecessary one he could not afford. As a result, he did not have proof he had sent the letter.

47. We do not doubt Mr A’s account of events. We appreciate how frustrating it would have been for Mr A to be told his complaint had not arrived in time and would not be considered. We are sorry to hear about the impact on him.

48. We have not seen any evidence that the ICE received the letter or that the job centre had referred to an ICE investigation after June 2024 as Mr A suggested.As there is no evidence ICE received Mr A’s letter in June 2024, we find ICE acted in line with its guidance when it declined to consider Mr A’s complaint.

49. While we appreciate this is frustrating for Mr A, we will not take any further action on this aspect of the complaint

1. We have carefully considered Mr A’s complaint to us about the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Independent Case Examiner (ICE).

2. We are sorry to hear that he is frustrated and distressed with the service he received from the DWP and the ICE.

3. We have considered all the evidence and found that the DWP acted in line with the published rules on suitability for the broadband scheme and our Principles of Good Administration when it handled Mr A’s request for broadband provision. We found that DWP acted in line with its guidance on funding courses when it declined to fund the third course Mr A requested.

4. We have seen that there is no evidence that the ICE received Mr A’s complaint to it within its six-month time limit. While we do not doubt Mr A’s account of the events, there is no evidence ICE received it. Therefore, the ICE followed it guidance when it told Mr A that without evidence he had sent the complaint, it would not be able to put aside its time limit.

5. We will not take any further action on his complaint to us, and we appreciate this will be disappointing for him to hear. We explain below how we reached our decision.