Department for Work and Pensions

3. Mr K complains DWP did not tell him it added Unacceptable Customer Behaviour (UCB) and Potentially Violent (PV) markers to his account in May 2024.

4. Mr K says not knowing about the markers meant DWP potentially treated him unfairly when making decisions about his benefits. He feels this has also affected how other organisations treat him. Mr K says what happened has had an ongoing and lasting negative impact on his mental health.

5. Mr K says that as an outcome to his complaint he would like a formal review and accountability. He would like a financial remedy and for DWP to remove the markers from his account.

6. DWP put UCB/ PV markers on Mr K’s benefits claim warning staff not to visit him at home. On 5 July 2023 it reviewed and removed these markers as he was no longer claiming benefits. Mr K made a new claim for Employment Support Allowance (ESA) on 4 April 2024. DWP added the markers back to this claim on 22 May but did not tell him.

7. In August, Mr K sent DWP an email asking what markers remained on his claim. A member of staff at DWP called Mr K later that month and explained the UCB/ PV markers were in place.

10. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the issue complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so, we consider DWP’s apology has put right the emotional impact on Mr K. Further, it is due to review the markers in line with his wishes.

11. Mr K says DWP did not proactively tell him about the UCB/ PV markers on his claim or explain why they are there. Mr K believes DWP should have updated him when it transferred the markers from his earlier benefit claim to his new one. He feels DWP was punishing him when it did not do so.

12. Mr K told us not knowing about the markers put his benefit entitlement at risk. He feels a home visit from DWP might have helped him due to his mental health conditions, but not knowing about the markers prevented this from happening. Mr K also feels his relationship with other organisations has been impacted and his reputation ‘tarnished’.

13. Mr K has told us how distressing he has found this series of events. He has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), anxiety and depression. He says these conditions mean DWP’s actions have had a far greater impact on him.

14. ICE investigated Mr K’s complaint. It considered DWP should have told Mr K the markers were in place when he enquired about them but did not do so. ICE upheld Mr K’s complaint and made a recommendation for DWP to put this right. It asked DWP to apologise for not informing Mr K about the UCB/ PV markers on his case and the impact this had on him.

15. Mr K feels ICE’s recommendations are not enough. Specifically, he believes what happened deserves more than an apology. He is also unhappy the markers are still on his claim and that ICE did not instruct DWP to review them.

16. Our Principles set out that organisations should acknowledge mistakes and apologise for them. The apology should identify what went wrong and recognise the impacts of what happened. We can also recommend financial remedy where the impact is particularly severe or goes on for a long time.

17. We understand Mr K is concerned not knowing about the markers possibly affected his benefits claim. However, he successfully claimed ESA after DWP applied the markers to his claim. Therefore, the markers (and not knowing about them at the time) have not impacted his benefits. This means there is nothing for us to put right here.

18. We do not dispute how Mr K’s personality disorder, ADHD, OCD, anxiety and depression affect his day-to-day life. Mr K says DWP’s actions have worsened these conditions, and in turn have worsened how distressing DWP’s actions have been for him.

19. We believe it is likely the emotional impacts Mr K has told us about would have happened regardless of when he learned about the presence of the markers. This limits the emotional impact of DWP not telling him about them sooner.

20. Consequently, we consider the apology DWP provided sufficiently puts right the delay ICE identified given it identified what went wrong and the impact this had. Finally, DWP was due to review the markers in May 2026. It will have the opportunity to remove the markers if they are no longer needed.

21. We agree something went wrong when DWP did not inform Mr K about the markers. We also recognise how badly let down he feels. We hope our consideration provides the review he wants and reassurance about what DWP has done to put things right.

1. We have carefully looked at Mr K’s complaint about the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Having done so, we consider there is nothing further we should recommend to put things right.

2. We can see why Mr K is so upset because of what happened. We recognise this series of events has been particularly distressing for him.