Break in benefit claim due to Jobcentre Plus failings

What happened

Jobcentre Plus gave Ms K wrong information about claiming benefits when she was ill while she was claiming jobseeker's allowance. As a result, there was a break in her benefit record. This meant that when she started work, she was unable to claim financial support for the transition from receiving benefits to working in the form of a job grant and in‑work credit.

Ms K complained to Jobcentre Plus and then to the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) that Jobcentre Plus had given her incorrect advice. She sought a payment to cover the job grant and in‑work credit that she lost out on because of the break in her benefit record. Jobcentre Plus and ICE did not uphold her complaint.

What we found

Ms K had given Jobcentre Plus enough information for it to have advised her correctly. If Jobcentre Plus had advised Ms K correctly, she would not have had a break in her benefit claim and Jobcentre Plus would have accepted her job grant and in‑work credit claim.

Jobcentre Plus's record keeping was poor. It has a data retention policy under which it destroys records after a set period. If someone has made a complaint, it should keep the records until 14 months after the complaint is closed. Jobcentre Plus did not do this.

Jobcentre Plus incorrectly told ICE that it had not received a letter from Ms K in which she had asked for advice on her benefits. However, Ms K had hand‑delivered her letter to Jobcentre Plus.

We did not have any more information than ICE had when it investigated the complaint and yet we spotted Jobcentre Plus's failure to retain records and the incorrect information that it gave ICE. Consequently, ICE had failed to consider the evidence in this case properly.

Jobcentre Plus's failings were responsible for the break in Ms K's benefit record that meant she could not claim employment and support allowance. Ms K lost out on over £3,000 (for the job grant, in‑work credit and employment and support allowance). This was a significant loss to her that had put her under financial strain.

Moreover, in addition to the errors already noted, Jobcentre Plus gave Ms K a poor explanation about a £100 consolatory payment that it gave her, and ICE made things worse by not considering evidence properly.

These failings added to Ms K's time, costs, confusion and frustration in seeking a resolution to her complaint and the in‑work benefits that she expected but which, at the time of our investigation, some years later, she had yet to receive.

Putting it right

Jobcentre Plus paid Ms K over £3,000 in compensation plus interest for the benefits that she lost out on. It apologised to Ms K for the failings we identified and their impact.

Jobcentre Plus also paid Ms K £500 made up of £250 for its poor complaint handling and £250 for the financial strain Ms K felt when she did not receive the benefits she was entitled to.

Jobcentre Plus checked its guidance about when to retain evidence after a complaint. It used this case to remind employees about the importance of keeping evidence for complaints, and how to identify what counts as evidence.

Jobcentre Plus also checked the mechanism that prevents complaint evidence being destroyed until 14 months after the close of a complaint.

ICE paid Ms K £150 for compounding Jobcentre Plus's poor complaint handling by failing to consider properly the evidence in this case. ICE also apologised to Ms K for the failings we identified in its investigation and for their impact on Ms K.