Department for Work and Pensions

5. Mr and Mrs H considered DWP made a mistake in March 2019 when processing their Universal Credit claim resulting in them not receiving their entitlement towards housing costs. DWP acknowledged the error when discovered in March 2023 and paid the housing element for the missed 47 months.

6. They also considered DWP took too long to put things right when DWP discovered its mistake in March 2023.

7. Mr and Mrs H said the missed housing award caused them financial hardship between April 2019 and May 2023. Mr and Mrs H could not meet their rent commitments and, in 2023, faced eviction. They could not keep up with Mrs H’s car finance payments, and her car had to be returned, leaving her unable to attend health appointments.

8. Mr and Mrs H said DWP’s actions caused them both stress and exacerbated Mrs H’s pre-existing health problems to the extent that she had to undergo surgery. Mr H said DWP’s actions were a contributory factor in his health problems experienced during this period. Their credit rating was affected by what has happened which, along with a damaged relationship with their current landlord, makes it impossible for them to move house.

9. Mr and Mrs H considered DWP’s consolatory payment of £500 did not address the full impacts of its mistakes. They wanted a payment from DWP that fully reflects the impacts they suffered from its errors.

10. On 19 March 2019, Mr and Mrs H claimed Universal Credit. They declared their housing costs were £625 per month. At that time, they had rent arrears of £1,611.

11. They attended an appointment at DWP to verify their identity the following week. During this appointment DWP completed a questionnaire to verify their private rented sector housing costs.

12. DWP has acknowledged it made a mistake when completing that questionnaire. The mistake caused DWP to not award a housing element of £472 per month when it should have done so.

13. On 23 April 2019 DWP sent Mr and Mrs H their Universal Credit statement. This set out the payment entitlement and deductions made. It said the payment entitlements were for: ‘standard allowance’, children, children in childcare, and limited capability for work and work-related activity. The statement did not say that DWP had awarded Mr and Mrs H the housing costs element.

14. Over the following three years, Mr and Mrs H continued to be in rent arrears each month. From November 2022, they were unable to make any rent payments.

15. On 24 January 2023 Mr and Mrs H’s landlord served them with an eviction notice pursuant to Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. At this time, their rent arrears were £3,970.

16. As a result of the landlord’s legal action, Mr and Mrs H met with a local authority housing adviser. They suggested Mr and Mrs H contact DWP to see if they should have been receiving the housing element of Universal Credit.

17. Mr H spoke to DWP on 9 March 2023, and it told him he was not receiving the housing costs element. On 4 April 2023, DWP told Mr and Mrs H it would award the housing costs element, with payments backdated to March 2019.

18. Between 19 and 27 April 2023, DWP made payments to Mr and Mrs H totalling £19,490.

Issue 1 - DWP’s housing element mistake

21. Mr and Mrs H considered DWP made a mistake in March 2019 when processing their Universal Credit claim resulting in them not receiving an entitlement towards housing costs.

22. For DWP to award the Universal Credit housing costs element it needed to be satisfied Mr and Mrs H met the payment, liability, and occupation conditions of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013.

23. DWP invited Mr and Mr H to an appointment on 26 March 2019 to verify their Universal Credit claim. This involved a DWP official completing a ‘verification of private rented sector housing costs’ questionnaire.

24. Mr and Mrs H showed DWP a letter from their landlord’s agent. We understand this showed they had a commercial tenancy agreement and contained the information DWP needed to see to confirm Mr and Mrs H met the payment, liability, and occupation conditions of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013.

25. Unfortunately, DWP’s official selected ‘no’ to the question ‘does the claimant have a commercial agreement with their landlord?’ This was the wrong answer. DWP has accepted this was a mistake. The consequence of the mistake was that DWP did not award Mr and Mrs H a monthly housing element entitlement of £472 (towards their monthly rent of £625).

26. This simple clerical error was a departure from PHSO’s Principles of Good Administration to get things right by taking care when entering information. As such, it indicates there was potential maladministration by DWP when processing Mr and Mrs H’s Universal Credit claim. DWP accepted it made this mistake.

Issue 2 – DWP delay resolving its mistake

27. Mr and Mrs H considered DWP took too long to put things right when DWP discovered its mistake in March 2023.

28. Mr H telephoned DWP on 9 March 2023 asking if his Universal Credit payments included a housing element. He told DWP his landlord had served an eviction notice. DWP told Mr H that it was not paying them the housing costs element.

29. DWP told Mr H he should post a message on his Universal Credit journal and a case manager ‘will get back to you as soon as possible’. Mr H sent DWP journal messages on 9 and 14 March 2023. DWP had not responded by 21 March 2023.

30. We have not seen a service standard for how quickly DWP should respond to journal messages. However, we note that from September 2025 DWP started telling people the journal system was not an instant messaging system and ‘it might take a few days for your case manager or work coach to reply’. It is likely DWP held the same view of this service level at the time of the events.

31. Additionally, DWP’s ‘financial redress for maladministration: staff guide’ says it aims to provide its customers with a service which: ‘treats them well; delivers on time; provides them with the right results’. DWP had not responded within ‘a few days’ as indicated to Mr H, and this indicates a potential unreasonable delayed by DWP in resolving his query.

32. Mr H called DWP on 21 March 2023 asking for the issue to be escalated. DWP told Mr H how to add a message to his journal reporting a change of circumstances so he could apply for the housing costs element. DWP explained he would then need to upload a document as proof of his housing costs and described what information this document needed to include. In response to Mr H’s question about how long it would take to get the money due, DWP said it would need to verify his claim and could not promise how quickly this would be completed.

33. Mr H obtained a letter from his landlord’s agent and uploaded this to his DWP journal on 24 March 2023. An hour later, DWP replied to Mr H saying, ‘your housing has now been verified’. Mr H immediately asked DWP what happens next. An official from his local DWP Jobcentre Plus said: ‘We have sent a handover to your Case Manager for them to calculate the underpayment which should be actioned by 6pm on 27/03/2023’.

34. DWP does not appear to have service standard for how quickly it should calculate an underpayment and make any payments. In this case we have looked at what DWP said it would do. That was to calculate the underpayment within three working days. DWP did not calculate the underpayment by that date. This indicates that DWP did not act in line with PHSO’s Principles of Good Administration of being customer focused by doing what you say you are going to do.

35. Mr and Mrs H chased DWP with further journal messages on 28 and 29 March and 3 April 2023. It is likely that DWP should have considered these messages were a high priority given it was aware from Mr H’s phone call on 21 March 2023 that the two-month deadline for responding to the eviction notice had expired on 24 March 2023. The lack of any response indicates further potential instances of DWP not being customer focused.

36. Mr H spoke to DWP on 4 April 2023 and told it that he was due in Court on 8 April 2023 for an eviction hearing. DWP said a Case Manager would look at his case and respond by 6pm the next day. DWP met that promise.

37. On Wednesday 5 April 2023, it told Mr H: ‘all action has now been completed on your housing costs. We are just waiting for the system to generate the payment’.

38. Mr H explained that, to respond to the eviction proceedings, he needed DWP to confirm how much the backdated housing costs entitlement would be and when it would be paid. DWP did not answer his question until 13 April 2023. However, we note DWP would have had a limited window of opportunity to do so before its offices would have closed on 6 April 2023 for the Easter bank holiday weekend.

39. We saw that Mr H spoke to the DWP over the phone and exchanged further journal messages on 14, 17 and 18 April 2023. One of DWP’s telephone notes shows Mr H was very distressed about the situation, wanted to speak urgently to a DWP case manager, and had been turned away by his local jobcentre when attempting to speak to someone there.

40. DWP made the first backdated payment of the housing costs element on 19 April 2023. It made further payments over the following eight days.

41. This means in respect to paying the housing cost element, on 27 April 2023 DWP had returned Mr and Mrs H to the position they should have been in. That was 33 working days after Mr H alerted DWP of the issue. While DWP does not appear to have a service standard for when they should complete the calculation of an underpayment and make any backdated payments, for the reasons explained above, we think there are indications of potential maladministration by DWP in the time taken to do this for Mr and Mrs H’s Universal Credit housing costs element.

Impact of DWP’s errors 42. We saw two separate occasions when DWP appears to have made a mistake. We think the impacts of each occasion are different.

43. DWP’s March 2019 mistake of not paying Mr and Mrs H the housing costs element meant they did not receive the money they should have received until it corrected the mistake in April 2023.

44. That said, from April 2019 onwards DWP provided Mr and Mrs H with regular statements about their Universal Credit award. We have looked at those statements and can see the clearly set out the separate elements of their Universal Credit award. They did not show that DWP had awarded the housing costs element. This means it is likely Mr and Mrs H should not have thought they were receiving the housing costs element.

45. We have seen that Mr H explained to DWP why he thought he was receiving the housing costs element. Mr H said that, while attending an initial appointment about his Universal Credit claim in March 2019, a DWP official ‘explained all the elements would be included, therefore he did not question his UC award’.

46. We do not doubt Mr H’s account of that event. At the same time, we have not seen evidence that this did happen. That said, if we were to accept Mr H’s understanding of events this would not change the key facts that no award had been made at that time and DWP’s Universal Credit award statements issued to Mr and Mrs H from April 2019 showed the housing element had not been awarded.

47. When writing to Mr and Mrs H’s MP, DWP said ‘the onus is placed on the claimant to check their payment statements and tell us if they think their payments are incorrect’. DWP also said its official could not have told Mr and Mrs H that DWP had awarded the housing costs element at the initial meeting in March 2019 because no award had been made at that time. As a result, DWP did not accept it was responsible for remedying all of Mr and Mrs H’s claimed impacts from its March 2019 mistake.

48. PHSO’s Principles for Remedy say it is reasonable for organisations to consider any way in which the complainant has contributed to, or prolonged, the injustice or hardship. DWP’s stance is in line with those Principles. As such, it appears that DWP has acted correctly when deciding it cannot remedy all the impacts that Mr and Mrs H experienced before they first queried the award made in March 2023.

49. For that reason, we have not seen indications that DWP’s potential mistakes are likely to be responsible for:

• damaging the relationship with their landlord because they were in rent arrears before their March 2019 Universal Credit claim and Mr and Mrs H’s landlord served them with an eviction notice before they contacted DWP in March 2023 to query their award • defaulting on car finance payments that led to repossession of their car because this happened in August 2021 • any deterioration in their credit rating because this will have been affected by both of the above.

50. On DWP’s delay in March and April 2023 in resolving its mistake, we can see that this happened at challenging time for Mr and Mrs H. They had contacted DWP six weeks after receiving an eviction notice. They had limited time to resolve matters before the deadline to submit their responses and the date to appear in Court.

51. DWP’s initial lack of response up to 21 March 2023 will have exacerbated Mr and Mrs H’s worry about being in rent arrears and facing eviction. This worry may have alleviated on 24 March 2023 when DWP told them it had verified their housing costs claim and would make a backdated payment.

52. We saw DWP appears to have been responsible for an extended delay between the action it promised would be completed on 27 March 2023 and making all the backdated payments on 27 April 2023. This will have caused acute distress to Mr and Mrs H for this four-week period.

53. We do not doubt that the stress of the eviction proceedings will have impacted on both Mr and Mrs H to the extent that it caused a deterioration in their health. This is likely to be particularly the case for Mrs H who had a preexisting condition that can be made worse by stress. However, we think it unlikely that further investigation of this aspect of the case would produce reliable evidence that DWP’s potential delay in March and April 2023 caused or exacerbated those health impacts.

DWP’s action to put things right 54. DWP’s guidance ‘financial redress for maladministration: staff guide’ says it will consider any injustice or hardship caused by its actions on a case-by-case basis. This consideration will include the circumstances of the individuals affected and provide them with an opportunity to provide evidence.

55. That guidance says DWP can make consolatory payments to reflect injustices sustained as well as for any actual financial loss incurred.

56. We saw that, by the end of the complaints process including the Independent Case Examiner’s November 2024 report, DWP had invited and considered Mr and Mrs H’s evidence of the impacts they had experienced in this case.

57. The Independent Case Examiner noted DWP’s consolatory payment reflected the length of time from when Mr and Mrs H first notified them of the problem on 9 March 2023 to when DWP paid the arrears on 27 April 2023. We agree this is likely to be the right duration of the injustice sustained by Mr and Mrs H.

58. DWP has paid £500 to Mr and Mrs H to as a consolatory payment for its mistakes. We consider whether an organisation’s financial remedies are fair by reference to PHSO’s ‘Our guidance on financial remedy’. At the time, that amount reflected ‘Level 3’ on the severity of injustice scale set out in that guidance.

59. The description for this level of injustice includes: ‘Distress, upset or worry lasting 6-12 months. Significant distress (that is, distress which results in a degree of functional impairment) lasting from a few weeks to three months (or shorter periods where the symptoms are greater).’

60. We think the injustice that Mr and Mrs H appear to have sustained in this case falls within that level of severity. As such, it appears that DWP has already provided Mr and Mrs H with an appropriate amount of financial remedy for exacerbating their worries from 9 March to 27 April 2023 and causing acute distress between 27 March and 27 April 2023.

61. On actual financial loss, Annex 2 to ICE’s November 2024 sets out DWP’s consideration of Mr and Mrs H’s claim for actual financial losses they believed were caused by DWP’s mistakes.

62. DWP’s ‘Financial redress for maladministration: staff guide’ says DWP should consider actual financial loss by considering the evidence of any losses or costs incurred due to its mistake.

63. We can see from ICE’s report that DWP has carefully considered Mr and Mrs H’s claimed actual financial losses and explained its decisions. We can see no indications of any mistakes in this consideration. As such, it appears DWP has followed its ‘Financial redress for maladministration: staff guide’ and properly completed its consideration of the financial remedies.

64. We understand that Mr and Mrs H faced significant difficulties meeting their rent payments while receiving Universal Credit between 2019 and 2023. Our decision recognises the extent to which DWP’s mistakes were responsible for adding to their worries and distress. We hope Mr and Mrs H can appreciate the reasons why we think DWP should not increase the financial remedy already provided.

1. We have carefully considered Mr and Mrs H’s complaints about DWP. We have seen that DWP has already done enough to put things right.

2. DWP made a mistake in March 2019 when processing Mr and Mrs H’s application for Universal Credit. This meant it did not award the housing costs element when it should have done. When Mr H discovered the problem in March 2023, DWP took too long to correct its mistake.

3. DWP provided Mr and Mrs H with a consolatory payment that reflected the length of time between them querying their award on 9 March 2023 and it paying the full housing cost arrears on 27 April 2023. We saw DWP’s decision was in line with its own guidance and PHSO’s Principles for Remedy. Furthermore, DWP’s £500 consolatory payment was also in line with PHSO’s Our guidance on financial remedy.

4. We understand that Mr and Mrs H faced significant difficulties meeting their rent payments while receiving Universal Credit between 2019 and 2023. Our decision recognises the extent to which DWP’s mistakes were responsible for adding to their worries and distress. We think DWP’s monthly award statements gave clear information that it was not paying Mr and Mrs H the housing costs element. As such, it is likely Mr and Mrs H should not have thought they were receiving the housing costs element We hope Mr and Mrs H can appreciate the reasons why we think DWP should not increase the financial remedy already provided.