DWP sent incorrect information to man's MP about outcome of a fraud investigation

What happened

Mr A had been claiming disability living allowance for over 10 years because he had been diagnosed with motor neurone disease. In the application form he stated that he was unable to walk more than 100 metres without help and that he was in severe pain seven days a week. However, Mr A's motor neurone disease did not progress as expected.

After a tip off, the DWP investigated Mr A's activities. It recorded him playing golf, riding a bicycle and doing other things that did not match his stated mobility and care needs. After an interview under caution, the DWP mounted two prosecution cases against Mr A, one civil at a tribunal to decide his entitlement to disability living allowance, and one criminal at a court to decide whether he was claiming disability living allowance fraudulently.

The DWP told Mr A that he did not appear to have motor neurone disease. Mr A went to a neurologist, who told him he did not have motor neurone disease and may have been misdiagnosed. Mr A had another illness that was much milder and not terminal.

The tribunal decided that, based on the evidence, Mr A was not entitled to disability living allowance from 2001 and he was ordered to pay back the benefits he received.

The court found Mr A guilty of not reporting a change of circumstance, that is, that his motor neurone disease did not progress as expected. He was sentenced to prison and to repay the benefit overpayment. However, the court found Mr A not guilty of misrepresenting his disability for the purpose of claiming benefits.

Mr A's MP asked for information from the DWP on Mr A's behalf. The DWP told the MP that Mr A had been found guilty by both the court and the tribunal of misrepresenting his disability. This was wrong because Mr A was only found guilty of not reporting changes in his circumstances.

When Mr A complained about this, the DWP got things wrong again by sending further unclear information to the MP. The Independent Case Examiner (ICE), the second tier of the DWP's complaints process, then investigated the complaint but did not identify that one statement was inaccurate.

What we found

We partly upheld this complaint. We found that the information that the DWP gave to Mr A's MP did not accurately reflect the decisions made by the court and tribunal.

Putting it right

DWP apologised to Mr A and his MP for providing incorrect and unclear official information. ICE apologised for failing to spot the incorrect statement and put it right.