Department for Work and Pensions

6. Mrs F complains that the DWP:

• did not send her a copy of its DMN in December 2023 regarding her CA application, despite saying it had done so • did not contact the competent country (Spain) to start a claim or open a dispute, following its decision that her claim was outside its jurisdiction • did not take proper account of her husband, Mr F’s, status under the Armed Forces Covenant, which she believes should have supported her application.

7. Mrs F further complains that ICE accepted information provided by the DWP that the DMN had been sent, without obtaining proper verification or confirming its authenticity.

8. Mrs F says that because the DMN decision was not sent or received, she was not aware of the DWP’s decision and was unable to ask about or take further steps with the claim.

9. She says the DWP’s failure to transfer her claim to Spain meant she did not receive interim CA payments while the claim was under review. She believes had Mr F’s Armed Forces Covenant had been taken into consideration her application for CA would have been successful.

10. Mrs F further says that if ICE had found the DMN was not sent, its conclusion would have been different.

11. Mrs F says the whole process has caused upset, confusion and frustration for her and her husband.

12. Mrs F is seeking an acknowledgement that the DWP did not follow the correct process, and confirmation that ICE did not verify or request adequate information from the DWP to confirm the existence or sending of the DMN.

13. In June 2023, Mrs F moved from the Philippines to Spain to live with her husband, Mr F, under a Spanish Reunification Visa.

14. In September 2023, Mrs F applied for CA for the care she provided to her husband. She requested that the claim be backdated to June 2023. The claim was referred to the DWP’s Exportability Team (ET), responsible for managing benefit claims for people living outside the UK, especially in the European Economic Area (EEA) or Switzerland.

15. In early December 2023, the ET told Mrs F she was not eligible for CA because she had not habitually resided in Great Britain. The ET informed her that she could request a Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) if she was unhappy with the decision.

16. A MR is the first stage of the appeals process if you disagree with a decision made about your CA, where you can ask for the decision to be looked at again.

17. In January 2024, Mrs F lodged a complaint with the DWP by phone. In August 2024, dissatisfied with the CA decision, Mr and Mrs F submitted two written complaints to the DWP and wrote to their MP.

18. In September 2024, the DWP acknowledged Mrs F’s complaint. In October 2024, it responded, confirming that its decision remained unchanged and that Mrs F was not entitled to CA. The DWP informed her that she could escalate her complaint to the ICE.

19. Later in October 2024, Mr and Mrs F submitted another complaint to the DWP, asking for a reconsideration of the decision.

20. By mid-November 2024, the DWP informed the couple that ICE was reviewing the MR request. Additionally, the DWP explained that Mrs F’s CA claim was held as a paper-file, which meant call handlers could not access it.

21. Later that month, the DWP completed its MR but upheld the original decision, maintaining that Great Britain was not the competent state responsible for paying cash sickness benefits from June 2023. A MR notice was sent to Mrs F, explaining the outcome and how to appeal through an independent Tribunal.

22. After this, Mr and Mrs F contacted the DWP to challenge the decision, but call handlers reiterated that the claim was held as a paper-file and could not be accessed via the system.

23. In January 2025, Mr and Mrs F submitted an appeal to the Tribunal service.

24. By August 2025, ICE completed its review of their complaint. ICE supported the DWP’s conclusion that Mrs F was not entitled to CA. However, it found service failings, including miscommunication and poor complaint handling.

25. Additionally, as part of its investigation, ICE discovered that the DWP had not forwarded Mrs F’s CA claim to the Spanish authorities until eight months after it determined, in November 2024, that Spain, not Great Britain, was the competent state to pay her benefit. Although this issue was not part of the initial complaint, ICE also considered this when making its recommendations. As a result, ICE recommended the DWP issue an apology and pay a £350 consolatory payment.

26. Mrs F brought her complaint to us in December 2025.

Did not send a DMN

29. 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.

30. Mrs F complains that the DWP did not send her a DMN regarding her CA application in December 2023, as it claimed it had done. Mrs F says the delay in receiving the DMN prevented her from pursuing the next steps with her claim. She says the DWP only offered her a copy of the DMN after ICE investigated her complaint.

31. The DWP’s Customer Charter states that it has a duty to keep its customers informed about their claims and to communicate decisions in a clear, timely, and transparent way. Similarly, Our Government Complaint Standards highlight that public bodies should maintain accurate records, act accountably, and give fair and evidence-based responses to complaints.

32. DWP and ICE both explained in their responses that the DWP’s ET decided in December 2023, that Mrs F was not entitled to CA. They said a DMN was created and sent the same day to inform her of its decision. The DWP also provided Mrs F with a copy of the notice in response to her complaint.

33. ICE explained that it found no evidence to suggest the DMN was not created or sent on the stated date, though it acknowledged Mrs F said she had not received it.

34. We can see from the information provided that the DWP created and issued a DMN to Mrs F in early December 2023. The DWP’s internal records show that a letter related to her CA application was generated and dispatched to Mrs F’s Spanish address at that time. A system record of the letter’s creation exists, along with a copy of the DMN in Mrs F’s file.

35. While we acknowledge Mrs F’s concerns about not receiving this DMN, we have seen no evidence to suggest that the DWP did not issue the notice. We understand Mrs F’s distress, as her inability to receive the letter caused further issues when interacting with the DWP in January 2024. We note that the DWP’s CA records were stored as a paper file, which likely caused communication difficulties when call handlers could not access those records.

36. Having reviewed the available evidence, we find the DWP created the DMN and issued this to Mrs F on the stated date. Both the DWP and ICE provided reasonable explanations to Mrs F regarding the issuance of the DMN and addressed her concerns within their responses in line with our Complaint Standards and DWP guidance.

37. As such, we find the DWP acted in line with its Charter when it created and sent the DMN to Mrs F. While we recognise Mrs F says she did not receive it, this does not mean DWP failed to do as it should. Whether Mrs F received the document was regrettably beyond the DWP’s control once the letter was sent. Furthermore, the DWP provided accountability as it confirmed to Mrs F that the DMN was created and dispatched, explained the technical limitations of its record-keeping system, and provided Mrs F with a copy when requested during the complaint process.

38. For these reasons we will take no further action on this aspect of her complaint. We are sorry to hear about the negative impact of not having received the correspondence had on Mrs F’s financial situation.

Did not transfer her claim to the competent country (Spain)

39. Before we decide if we should investigate a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the event complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. We have done this, and we have found the DWP has taken adequate steps to address the impact of these events.

40. The DWP Decision Makers’ Guide (DMG) outlines the responsibilities of a Decision Maker (DM) in cases involving overlapping social security systems of different countries. Once a DM decides that another member state has jurisdiction for a claim, the DWP should promptly notify the claimant of this decision.

41. The DWP must also ensure that the claim is forwarded to the correct country without delay and preserve the original claim date. Throughout this process, the DWP is also required to provide clear communication and appropriate support to the claimant.

42. Article 81 of EC Regulation 883/2004 establishes that Member States have an obligation to transfer claims promptly and to ensure the original application date is upheld. In doing so they enable claimants to rightfully pursue their entitlements without penalty or delay.

43. Specifically, the regulations states that the authority, institution or tribunal receiving the claim, declaration or appeal shall forward it without delay to the competent authority, institution or tribunal of the former Member State.

44. Mrs F complains that, in November 2024, the DWP did not transfer her claim to the Spanish authorities, after determining that her claim did not fall within its jurisdiction and that Spain was the competent country.

45. Mrs F says she only learned of the delay because it was uncovered during ICE’s investigation into other points of complaint. She says this caused financial loss, as she believes she would have been entitled to interim CA payments during the period concerned. We note that this aspect of financial loss was not raised as part of her original complaint to the DWP and remains unassessed by the department.

46. We have reviewed the records and confirm that ICE found the DWP did not forward Mrs F’s CA claim to Spain after its DM determined in November 2024 that Spain, not Great Britain, was the competent state to handle her claim.

47. ICE found that DWP guidelines require claims to be immediately forwarded to the competent member state once jurisdiction is determined. However, Mrs F’s claim was only forwarded to Spain after an eight-month delay, in July 2025, and only following ICE’s intervention.

48. ICE identified the delay as a service failure and concluded that it prevented Mrs F from pursuing her application in Spain in a timely manner, potentially delaying access to benefits. As part of its findings, ICE recommended the DWP issue an apology and a £350 consolatory payment.

49. We agree with ICE’s findings that the DWP should have forwarded Mrs F's claim promptly after determining Spain’s jurisdiction. We also acknowledge that this delay may have worsened the worry Mrs F was already experiencing.

50. Our Principles for Remedy explain that public bodies should seek to put things right when errors occur. They should aim to restore the individual to the position they would have been in had the fault not occurred. If this is not possible, they should provide adequate redress.

51. We can see from the information provided that by the time Mrs F became aware of the delay through ICE’s investigation, the DWP had already taken steps to rectify its error by forwarding her claim to Spain.

52. It sent the required information using the Electronic Exchange of Social Security Information (EESSI) system. This provided information to ensure that the original date of Mrs F’s application was preserved, meaning any successful claim could be backdated to that date, and confirmed that the UK was not responsible for payment of such benefits such as CA.

53. Additionally, the DWP tried to redress the impact of the delay by issuing an apology and offering a £350 consolatory payment.

54. Mrs F told us that the DWP’s actions caused her significant frustration, worry and upset. Having considered the circumstances, we consider this to align with level 2 on our ‘Severity of Injustice Scale’ as outlined in DWP’s ‘Guidance of Financial Remedy’. This applies where something more serious happened, but only happened once, and the effects are short-term with no lasting impact.

55. While we recognise Mrs F’s frustration, we can see this resulted from a single incident when she became aware of the situation. As the DWP preserved the original date of the claim, this meant there was no financial loss.

56. With this in mind, we consider the DWP’s actions to preserve the original claim date, rectify the error, provide an apology, and offer a £350 consolatory payment demonstrate that it took appropriate steps to address the impact of its mistakes. We find this to be a suitable remedy to put right the impact.

57. In conclusion, while we acknowledge the delay in transferring Mrs F’s claim, albeit it later than expected, our view is that the DWP fulfilled its procedural obligations under EC regulations by transferring the necessary information to Spain.

58. For these reasons we will take no further action on this part of Mrs F’s complaint.

Did not consider Mr F’s Armed Forces covenant

59. 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.

60. Mrs F complains that the DWP did not properly consider her husband, Mr F’s, Armed Forces Covenant when assessing her CA application in September 2023. She believes that, if the Covenant had been considered, her application for CA would have been successful.

61. The Armed Forces Covenant is a promise to ensure that those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces, and their families, are treated fairly and with respect. The Covenant has two main principles:

• that those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services • that, in some cases, special consideration may be appropriate, particularly for those who have given the most, such as those injured or bereaved in service.

62. While the Armed Forces Covenant places an obligation on public bodies, including the DWP, to treat service members and their families fairly, it does not grant public bodies legal flexibility to override statutory eligibility requirements for benefits. Decisions on eligibility for CA, like other benefits, must adhere strictly to the legal requirements set out in legislation.

63. When addressing Mrs F’s complaint, ICE reviewed whether the DWP had acted unfairly or failed to meet its duties under the Covenant. ICE explained that, to uphold a complaint based on the Covenant, there must be evidence that the DWP treated Mrs F or her husband unfairly or failed to give appropriate respect. ICE found no such evidence in this case.

64. Based on the evidence provided, we have not identified any indications that the DWP acted unfairly or treated Mrs F or her family in a manner that breached its obligations under the Armed Forces Covenant.

65. While we appreciate Mrs F’s view that the Covenant should have supported her application, the DWP was required to assess her eligibility for CA solely under the relevant legal criteria, as per the DWP Decision Makers’ Guide (DMG). These criteria include residency requirements, which Mrs F did not meet due to her recent move to Spain. The Covenant does not provide grounds for overriding such legal requirements.

66. As such, we see no evidence that the DWP failed to appropriately consider the implications of the Armed Forces Covenant in relation to Mrs F’s claim, nor that it acted outside the bounds of fairness or respect.

67. It is important to note that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) does not have the authority to overturn or amend decisions regarding benefit entitlement. Such decisions must be challenged through the DWP’s MR process and, if necessary, through an independent Tribunal. Mrs F has already initiated this process, and we encourage her to pursue it further as needed.

68. While we appreciate that this outcome may come as a disappointment to Mrs F, we hope this explanation provides clarity about our reasons for not taking further action on this point of her complaint. We also acknowledge and value Mr F’s service and sacrifice as a member of the Armed Forces and extend our respect and thanks to them for their contributions.

69. We hope this response provides clarity on our position and ensures that Mrs F has the necessary information to proceed with her appeal.

ICE did not verify the information provided by DWP

70. Mrs F also complains that ICE accepted the DWP’s information about the DMN sent in December 2023 without verifying the timing or authenticity of the document provided.

71. Mrs F believes that if ICE had found the DMN had not been sent, the outcome of its investigation would have been different

72. Our Government Complaint Standards explain that public bodies should act fairly, proportionately, transparently, and accountably. They must provide clear reasoning for their decisions and base their conclusions on robust and reliable evidence.

73. According to ICE’s Guidance ‘How to bring a complaint to the ICE’ if it decides to investigate a complaint, it will request all relevant case papers from the organisation being complained about. ICE investigators are required to examine the facts thoroughly, analyse the evidence presented by all parties, and report their findings to the ICE. The conclusion must outline the evidence reviewed and provide clear reasons for the outcome.

74. Having reviewed this aspect of Mrs F’s complaint, we found no evidence that ICE failed to act in line with its guidance or our Complaint Standards. ICE confirmed that it requested and reviewed all relevant records from the DWP, including entries from the DWP’s internal systems showing the creation and mailing of Mrs F’s DMN in December 2023. ICE also reviewed all evidence provided by Mrs F and considered her concerns about not receiving the DMN.

75. ICE reported that the DWP’s system recorded the creation of the DMN on the date the decision was made, and that the DMN was addressed to Mrs F’s residence in Spain. ICE found no inconsistencies or evidence to suggest the DWP did not create or send the DMN, even though Mrs F stated she did not receive it.

76. We carefully looked at ICE’s response to Mrs F and found that it demonstrated ICE had conducted a thorough, fair, and proportionate investigation. It considered all correspondence and documentation presented by both parties and clearly communicated its findings in a transparent and evidence-based manner.

77. While we understand Mrs F’s view, we have not identified any indication to suggest that ICE failed to properly verify the evidence presented by the DWP, or did not follow its own processes. Specifically, it confirmed the timing and existence of the DMN through its review of the DWP’s records, including a computer-generated entry showing the letter’s creation and dispatch.

78. After reviewing ICE’s investigation and its handling of Mrs F’s complaint, we can confirm that ICE acted appropriately, proportionately, and in accordance with its guidance and responsibilities. Furthermore, we have found no evidence to indicate that ICE acted inappropriately by accepting or relying on the DWP’s evidence regarding the DMN. For these reasons we will take no further action on this aspect of her complaint.

79. We are sorry to hear of the hardship, frustration, and distress Mrs F and her husband have experienced while managing her CA application and complaint. While we are unable to uphold some of the points raised in her complaint, we hope our decision clearly explains why we have concluded that both the DWP and ICE have already taken reasonable steps to address the issues raised.

80. The PHSO plays a key role in ensuring organisations deliver fair outcomes and good service to the public. Although we have not identified grounds for further investigation in this case, we would like to assure Mrs F that her concerns have been recorded on our system. Should systemic issues arise with the DWP or ICE in this area, complaints like Mrs F’s provide vital information to help us take appropriate action.

81. We hope this decision clarifies our findings and reassures Mrs F that her concerns have been carefully reviewed. We appreciate her engagement with our office and wish her and her family the very best for the future.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs F’s complaint about the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Independent Case Examiner (ICE). We are sorry to hear about the circumstances surrounding her complaint. We acknowledge the upset, frustration and confusion caused by the Carers Allowance (CA) application process and its impact on Mrs F and her husband.

2. We have found that DWP acted appropriately when it issued Mrs F’s Decision Maker’s Notice (DMN) about the outcome of her CA application, and when it considered Mr F’s Armed Forces Covenant. We have identified an error where the DWP did not transfer Mrs F’s claim to the competent country (Spain).

3. While we acknowledge the error regarding the claim transfer, we can see that the DWP has since taken appropriate steps to put right the impact of this mistake. Therefore, we will not consider it further.

4. Regarding ICE’s handling of Mrs F’s complaint, we found that it followed its processes in line with guidance. We did not identify any failings in its review, including its handling of the information provided by the DWP regarding Mrs F’s DMN. We appreciate this will be disappointing for Mrs F.

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