Making a complaint

about government
departments and services
to the Parliamentary
Ombudsman
Section 1: Can we look at your complaint?

Have you complained to the organisation?

Yes

No

Have you received a final response from them or completed their

complaints process?
Yes

No

If you have answered no to these questions, you should complain to the organisation
first and give them a chance to put things right. If you are not happy with their final
decision, you can then bring the complaint to us to consider.

If you have been given a reference number by one of our Customer Service
Officers, please enter it here:

When did the events happen?

Date: Month: Year: 2009 - 2013
Section 1: Can we look at your complaint? continued

When did you become aware of the problem?

Date: Month: Year: 2013 - 2017

When did you complain to the organisation?

Date: 26 Month: August Year: 2014

When did you first write to your MP about the complaint?

Date: 13 Month: May Year: 2017

If you haven’t been able to complain to us within a year of becoming

aware of the problem, please use this space to tell us why, giving as much
detail as possible.
I become aware that there might have been a problem because of a pension forecast I was sent
dated 29 January 2013.

It transpired after contacting HMRC that I had insufficient National Insurance (NI) credits allocated
to qualify pension entitlement in respect of three consecutive tax years beginning 2008-09.

After a number of fruitless meetings with Grimsby Jobcentre the only option I was left with was to
appeal the decisions that led to the missing NI credits. The appeal was submitted 23 April 2013.

The outcome of the appeal was in my favour and the decisions which led to the missing NI credits
overturned. However, it had taken until 20 December 2013 (8 months) to obtain the outcome.

A complaint was submitted on 26 August 2014 because of ongoing issues with the Grimsby
Jobcentre regarding the obstruction to crediting NI credits that were missing due to being wrongly
sanctioned.

I was replied to on 17 September 2014 and informed that the complaint might take some time to
investigate fully due to its complexity but had a full response on 16 October 2014. The complaint
was upheld and learned that being a NI credits only claimant I should not have been sanctioned and
consequently been subjected to disentitlement of NI credits. However, a number of other issues I
had raised in my complaint had not been addressed.

I escalated the complaint to the next stage on 10 April 2014 after allowing a period of six months
for my unanswered issues to be resolved (there were no further answers).

I was replied to on 16 June 2015 and had other elements of my complaint addressed and upheld but
other elements had been unsatisfactorily addressed.

I escalated the complaint to the final stage on 22 December 2015 and received the outcome on 9
March 2017 which was a detailed analysis of the complaint with all but one element upheld. It was
further revealed that as a NI Credits only claimant, I was not obliged to engage or participate with
the Work Programme and therefore should not have been sanctioned. According to the outcome,
my claim had been incorrectly closed on two occasions for failing to attend Work Programme
appointments. This was not discovered in any previous stage of the complaints process.

I contended the one element of the complaint which was not upheld and queried the handling of
the way special payment issues were dealt with which was replied to in a letter dated 30 March
2017 informing me that the report would not be edited or re-issued.

Legal action
In some cases, you might be better off taking legal action, for example, if you want a
very large financial remedy. If you have already been to court or are thinking about
taking legal action, please tell us about it here as it may affect whether we can
investigate your complaint.
Please phone us on 0345 015 4033 if you have any questions about this.

Are you taking, or planning to take, legal action about your complaint?
Yes

No

If yes, please give us details of any legal action you have taken, or are planning.

Section 2: The government department or service

Who are you complaining about?

What is the name and address of the organisation you are complaining
about?
Jobcentre Plus - Bridge House, 225 Victoria Street, Grimsby, DN31 1NH

Section 3: About your complaint

Briefly tell us what your complaint is about.

BACKGROUND

The issues were sparked off after taking the decision to resign from my job on health grounds. My
intention was to support myself financially (which I did) until deciding on another direction to take.
My living expenses, Council tax, mortgage etc., where all met from savings.

Without the distractions associated with being beholden to the state it was easier to pursue skills,
unhindered, which were necessary to achieve my planned change in direction.
This worked for several months and would have continued had the council not begun court
proceedings for Council Tax recovery. This action was taken, not for non-payment, but because the
law provides for the instalment facility to be withdrawn after two late payments, meaning payment
in full is demanded immediately. Failure thereafter to raise the lump sum permits the council to
obtain a liability order through the court which in turn gives it powers to instruct bailiffs. I was
outraged at being threatened by the council whilst choosing not to claim benefits, so continued
paying the few remaining instalments as normal. The council then took arguably lawful (but
unnecessary) court action, adding costs and irresponsibly instructing its bailiff contractor,
Rossendales.

By the time bailiffs were instructed, the Council Tax was all settled. However, hundreds of pounds
were added fraudulently by Rossendales which I reported to the Police. Humberside Police's
Economic Crime Section fobbed off the incident as a civil matter to be taken up with the council.
The authority lied, condoning Rossendale’s criminal actions throughout the formal complaints
procedure. The Chief Executive failed to uphold the complaint which made him complicit. The
Local Government Ombudsman was similarly negligent.

On researching Rossendales it was discovered that they were notorious for defrauding householders
pursued by councils. Each new piece of evidence was countered by the Police with a new excuse
why they would not investigate. When escalated to the IPCC, the Police watchdog did nothing
because the law allowed it to.

Excuses for the council/Rossendales were made by the organisation which oversees complaints
about breaches of confidentiality. The Information Commissioner found on the balance of
probabilities that a letter left by Rossendales threatening to remove my goods WAS NOT left in the
place I found it (outside the communal entrance to my property) and therefore did not consider the
bailiff breached the Data Protection Act. Remarkably, it was the council’s defence against
accusations about previous letters that I had not received that they would have been left in the
same way, but they had dissappeard before I found them.

A distinct pattern of cover-ups and corruption was evident. It was clear to me that public bodies
are reluctant to uphold complaints about another.

The state had no reservations in screwing me which was why I decided to get from the system what
I was entitled and made a claim for Job Seekers Allowance. I now wholeheartedly regret that
decision because the damage as a consequence has added significantly to that caused by the
council.

I applied for contributions based jobseekers which was accepted and allowed entitlement to the
basic amount (without means testing) for a maximum period of six months. After this point, means
testing was necessary if wanting to claim anything other than National Insurance (NI) credits. I
continued the claim beyond six months but only for NI credits.

The time I was registered as a NI only claimant proved to be extremely turbulent. For example, I
was told to attend work programmes resulting in sanctions I was unaware about for non
attendance. Since being embroiled in these issues it has been discovered that work programmes are
not obligatory for NI only claimants and it is unlawful to impose sanctions for someone whose claim
is only for NI credits.

It was the discovery that I was several years short of what I had expected my qualifying year’s state
pension entitlement should have been that has led to years of dispute trying to get this resolved.
My records revealed that NI credits had not been awarded over certain periods of the claim. To put
the seriousness of this into perspective, any number of credits less than the full 52 excludes that
year completely as qualifying for pension entitlement.

SUMMARY OF 26 AUGUST 2014 COMPLAINT

A pension forecast obtained on or around 29 January 2013 highlighted a deficiency of NI credits.

The number of qualifying year’s state pension entitlement up to the tax year ending 5 April 2012
was 25 compared with 24 previously forecasted for the year ending 5 April 2008. Only 1 year’s
entitlement had accrued over 4 tax years.

Up until 17 March 2009 when a claim for NI credits only was made, I was for a period neither
employed nor registered unemployed. The only year failing to qualify over the 4 years should
therefore have been that relating to the 2008/09 tax year.

The news came around the same time of being told at a jobcentre interview that the DWP had
ended my NI credits only claim and needed to re-apply for it to resume.

The gross inconvenience resulting from maladministration has occurred over such a protracted
period of time that the numerous counts of negligence and error brought to light are best detailed
in a chronology of events.

On 12 February 2013 I attended an interview at Grimsby Jobcentre (GJC) to learn my claim for NI
credits had been terminated and was required to re-apply if wanting to resume the claim (I had not
ended the claim, GJC had). The same adviser brought up the matter of a work programme
placement with provider G4S which I had not been attending. I had made it clear several times to
various advisors previously why not. I had also responded to information requested in two letters
dated the 4th and 7th of December 2012 regarding the matter which were never responded to and
therefore stated to the advisor that I was not willing to discuss again why I had not attended the
work programme.

On 26 February 2013, concerns were raised with an advisor regarding the deficient number of
year’s pension entitlement. The branch manager (Richard) stated there was no means of
determining where the problem lie and provided a contact number for HMRC Newcastle.

HMRC revealed insufficient NI credits had been allocated to qualify pension entitlement in respect
of 2008-09, 09-10 and 10-11 tax years. In March, HMRC sent details of the amount I needed to pay
for each of the three years to count towards my basic State Pension and the number of NI
contributions that had been credited for each year.

At the attendance to sign on 12 March 13, it came to light that I was no longer registered
unemployed as I'd not re-applied for Job Seekers Allowance (JSA). I signed regardless, to provide
proof of my attendance throughout the time it would take to challenge the legality of being forced
off the unemployment register. The advisor agreed and produced a declaration form which I signed
and obtained a photocopy for myself.

I Attended GJC on 26 March which would have been my next signing day. A Personal Adviser
explained why JSA had been terminated; asserting that the law had been complied with on being
challenged that a decision taken to de-register as unemployed should be the claimant’s not the
jobcentre’s. I was assured the causes of the termination would be looked into and agreed an
appointment to see a manager.

Attended meeting on 9 April at which departmental targets and regional league tables discussed
and suggested may have led to termination of claim. Prevalent press coverage at the time
criticising Jobcentres encouraging staff, re sanction targets was discussed, but dismissed by GJC for
having no relevance.

I was required to submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) to authorise GJC to access details of
sanctions leading to the deficiency in NI credits because of Data Protection restrictions. GJC
discouraged exercising appeal right but advised if doing so to submit appeal form (GL24) without
delay and to state that the ‘grounds of appeal’ would follow once details of the SAR had been
disclosed.

I unwittingly became the Appellant in a Tribunal case against the DWP because Hull Benefit
Delivery Centre (BDC) Appeals team evidently had not been sent the complete GL24. It was later
discovered that in all probability GJC sent Hull BDC a copy of the 2 page appeal form, having
duplicated the same page so Hull BDC were lacking half the information.

The GL24 form was signed and dated on 23 March with an explanation that no grounds of appeal
could be provided because I was awaiting the result of the SAR which hopefully would provide why
the sanction decisions had been made. A letter authorising the GJC access to my personal
information under the Data Protection Act 1998 was sent on 2 May 2013.

Hull BDC sent a letter on 7 May stating that: “the law says we can only deal with an appeal when it
has been made in the right way”. It requested in writing, (i) which decision I wanted to appeal
against, (ii) why I wanted to appeal against the decision, (iii) and specified that I needed to sign it
myself, or give authority for the person who signed it to act as my representative.

Though I had not retained a copy, so had no record to confirm whether or not GL24 had been
signed, I remembered stating that to detail the appeal grounds, I required information which was
subject to the SAR and may take several weeks to obtain.

On 22 May I contacted the Personal Adviser at GJC to enquire when the SAR details were expected
so I could update Hull BDC. I kept Hull BDC informed in an email stating I would write in more
detail, but attached the 2 May letter regarding the SAR to explain why I was unable to provide
further details in relation to my appeal.

I received confirmation on 23 May from GJC that the SAR had been received on 2 May 2013 and
immediately referred to its District Team and to expect the information to be provided within 40
working days (The Information Commissioner specifies 40 calendar days, not working days, as the
statutory time limit for responding to a SAR).

Also on 23 May I sent a letter to Hull BDC apologising for being unable to supply further details, but
referred to the explanation I had given on form GL24 (re, awaiting SAR) and that it could take 40
working days. All correspondence regarding the matter was enclosed.

I received a letter dated 6 June 2013 from HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) regarding the
Social Entitlement Tribunal to which was stapled a Judge’s Directions Notice and referral papers
from Hull BDC to the Tribunal (including a copy of GL24) for a decision as to whether the appeal
was duly made.

The Judge required that I send to the Tribunal further details of grounds within 14 days because
Hull BDC claimed that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction over the appeal due to insufficient grounds.

The document consisting of 5 pages (original retained) can clearly be seen to be in tact, i.e., the
staple holding it together has never been removed. The page which included my signature was
missing (page two) but in its place was a duplicate of the first page (arising presumably from a
copying error) which provides the solution for why both Hull BDC then the Tribunal questioned that
the form was not signed. The missing page also contained the information explaining why I could
not (until I had received information from the SAR) provide the appeal grounds.

I sent by return of post a hand written note asking the Tribunal to refer to all correspondence
already sent, implying that the problem lie in a communication breakdown between departments.

Evidence suggests that had there been no clerical error, the matter would have unlikely escalated
to a Tribunal but remained with Hull BDC. Why else, if Hull BDC had held both pages, would it have
sent the 7 May letter asking for the form to be signed and for information which had already been
explained on GL24 could not be provided until the SAR had been processed?

The deadline for complying with the SAR was 11 June 2013 but the requested information relied
upon for setting down the grounds of appeal had not been provided.

A letter from HMCTS dated 19 June enclosed the Judge’s Decision Notice to strike out the appeal
and letter from the Clerk to the Tribunal. The Decision Notice stated that I had been given the
opportunity to make representations about appeal but my letter received 11 June contained no
useful information therefore appeal struck out. The letter stated that they can only deal with the
appeal if I had signed GL24 and the decision being appealed is identified with reasons given why.

I emailed Hull BDC again on 27 June with letters reattached asking for the previous correspondence
to be acknowledged (22 May email and the 23 May letter). I expressed that I believed my
correspondence was being mishandled because of the letter from the HMCTS requesting further
details and another striking out the appeal because the note I’d sent contained no useful
information. I asked Hull BDC to inform the Tribunal that I had no way of providing further
information until I receive it in accordance with the SAR which had not yet been complied with.

I informed Hull BDC that I had advised the Tribunal that my correspondence should be referred to
from which it would be apparent that the appeal grounds were being delayed due to the SAR and
assumed the Tribunal has not referred to it because the Tribunal subsequently stated that there
was no useful information.

Hull BDC neither responded to emails (22 May & 27 June) nor letter sent 23 May. On 30 June 2013 I
emailed “DWP enquiries” to obtain confirmation that both postal and email addresses were valid
and that the person I had been dealing with at Hull BDC was an employee of the DWP. In the
absence of a response, I attempted again to contact DWP enquiries on 1, 10 and 11 of July 2013.
Neither Hull BDC nor DWP enquiries have to this day ever responded to any correspondence.

I Telephoned Hull BDC around this time to raise concerns about the appeal. The person taking the
call was unable to identify the appeal (or the person dealing with it) from any of the references on
the letter (7 May 13) so the attempt abandoned. I subsequently phoned Social Security & Child
Support Appeals (SSCSA) and obtained the relevant email contact used for serving appeal
documents.

I sent an email and attachments to SSCSA on 1 July 2013 to address the Clerk’s letter outlining why
the Tribunal could not deal with the appeal which led to the Judge striking it out. Though a record
of GL24 was not retained, I received a copy sent by the Tribunal albeit incomplete on 6 June 2013.
It was not apparent at the time that GL24 was incomplete and I assumed that the error simply
amounted to two copies of the completed form being stapled together. The picture did not become
clear that the 6 June 2013 copy was incomplete until the complete GL24 had been provided on 28
March 2014 in response to a second SAR submitted asking for all Jobseekers Allowance records. The
page which included my signature and my reasons why I could not provide the appeal grounds was
missing (page two) but in its place was a duplicate of the first page. Because of the missing page,
the only space visible for a signature was one to authorise a person representing the applicant. This
accounts for the assumption made in my email to SSCSA on 1 July, which was that “as far as I'm
aware there's no provision for the applicant to sign it; looking at a copy I've been sent, the space
for a signature is only for the applicant to sanction somebody representing them.”

Had a copy been retained the doubt would not have arisen and it known for certain that the form
had in fact been signed. However, more crucially, had there been no official error and GL24 copied
correctly the appeal would not have been queried, struck out or even escalated to the Tribunal.

I explained in my 1 July email to SSCSA that rather than being sent a letter about the decision I was
informed verbally whilst attending the jobcentre that my claim had been disallowed. This was why
I stated on the form that there was "NO LETTER" where it asked for the date on the letter about the
decision. Presumably the Tribunal could not identify ‘the decision’ for that reason.

It was also explained that I had not been able to comply by supplying the requested information,
because I have not received the information back to a SAR which had been reiterated in
letters/emails to Hull BDC (specifying the relevant addresses) who had not responded.

I received a judge’s Directions Notice in correspondence dated 12 July 2013 from HMCTS. The
Tribunal Judge stated that, (i) The appeal was struck out on 17/06/13, (ii) An email was received
by the Tribunal clerk from the Appellant on 01/07/13, (iii) The appeal is not reinstated, and (iv) If
the Appellant wishes to make further application for reinstatement of his appeal, he should note
the time limits for an application to be made. Also it is relevant that the Appellant has not even
identified the decision(s) which he wished to appeal. He has also not given the grounds of appeal.

I sent an email on 5 August and attachments to the Personal Adviser at GJC and SSCSA, alerting
them to the breakdown of communication (Hull BDC / Tribunal) and reiterated the ongoing
difficulties explaining to Hull BDC and Tribunal, i.e., signature on GL24, the appealed decision
being identified and Grounds of appeal. Enquiries were made about the SAR and asked for the
contact of the person who the SAR had been sent so I could make my own enquiries.

I also requested that a copy of the letter asked for by the Tribunal that would identify the appealed
decision be sent to me or a letter outlining the decision was attempting to appeal thus allowing me
to supply the requested information to the Tribunal. I challenged the Tribunal’s direction to strike
out the appeal by applying for another direction to reinstate the appeal in accordance with the
relevant Rules on the basis that I had made further requests that hopefully would enable the
information requested by the Tribunal to be forwarded to it at some point.

By law the SAR should have been responded to by 11 June 2013 and was therefore at this time
around 2 months overdue. I resent the email to the Personal Adviser on 7 August 2013 receiving an
auto return message confirming it had been opened (outlook express read receipt).

In the absence of a response I sent the email a third time to the Personal Adviser (SSCSA copied in)
on 12 August, again receiving confirmation that it had been opened. Additionally questioned
whether the issues raised would be addressed and stressed that providing a contact for the person
dealing with the SAR, and a copy of the letter I wished to appeal should not cause difficulty.

I assumed the Information Commissioner was at fault for the delay regarding the SAR, not the DWP.
It was later apparent that responsibility was entirely with the DWP to release information under the
Data Protection Act.

In the absence of a response I sent the email a fourth time to the Personal Adviser (SSCSA copied
in) on 13 August, again receiving confirmation he had opened it.
The fourth email regarding the same matter prompted no response so sent email to whom I was led
to believe was the GJC manager on 14 August expressing that I wished to make a formal complaint
about the staff member but in the meantime asked if she would address the 5 August 2013 email.

I received an email regarding the SAR delay on 14 August from the Performance Team Leader (GJC)
writing to confirm that they were in receipt of my SAR and apologised for the delay though assure
me that he was dealing with it and working urgently to resolve the matter.

I received a reply from who I believed was the GJC manager on 15 August apologising that I was
unhappy with the level of service regarding the SAR and confirmed that Personal Adviser did refer
on my original SAR and all subsequent correspondence to the relevant persons without delay via
their Customer Service Manager who would contact me later that day with an update.

On 20 August I received the completed response from Hull Benefit Centre which was overdue by 70
days. Over the period subject to the SAR, it was revealed I had been sanctioned six times.
Consequently National Insurance credits were missing that I had been unaware of and accounted for
the reduced number of years qualifying for state pension entitlement. Details varied in
completeness from having no supporting evidence to having full electronic copies of referrals.
Further information and assistance was offered should I have deeded it.

In the absence of a response to my 5 August email I sent another on 21 August 13 to SSCSA to chase
for a response to my request for the appeal to be reinstated in accordance with the relevant
regulations and seeking any action the tribunal would take. I informed SSCSA that I was in receipt
of the SAR which would provide material to outline grounds of appeal but highlighted anomalies
about the decisions.

On 22 August I replied to Hull Benefit Centre for clarification and further details in relation to the
email sent 20 August which was never responded to.

I received Directions Notice in correspondence also dated 22 August from HMCTS. The Tribunal
Judge informed, despite further information being provided on 21 August that, (i) The appeal was
struck out on 17/06/13, (ii) Following receipt of an email from the Appellant directions were made
on 10/07/13 and the appeal was not reinstated, (iii) A further email has been received from the
Appellant. There is no further information provided. The appeal remains struck out.

On 23 August I emailed SSCSA to query why another Direction Notice stated the appeal remained
struck out because no further information had been submitted stressing that further information
had been provided on 2 August and that I had just received information which would enable me to
submit my appeal grounds.

On 1 September I submitted my appeal grounds in accordance with the relevant Rules to SSCSA and
in correspondence dated 1 October 2013 from HMCTS Received a Directions Notice.

The Tribunal Judge informed that, (i) The Appellant made an appeal 29/04/13 but the decision
against which he was appealing could not be identified, (ii) The Appellant has now sent to the
Tribunal a bundle of documents. The bundle includes copies of two decisions dated 05/12/12 and
30/01/13 made on the basis that he was not actively seeking employment for 21/11/12 to 04/12/12
and from 16/01/13 to 29/01/13, (iii) The Appellant has previously stated that he had not received
decision notices, (iv) Directions are now made for the Appellant to comply with. He is directed to
comply by writing to the Tribunal and his reply is to be received in 14 days after the issue of these
directions, (v) The Appellant must first confirm whether it is the two decisions dated 05/12/12 and
30/01/13 which he is appealing, and if not what is the date of the decision(s) which he wishes to
appeal, (vi) Next, he must set out the grounds for his appeal(s), (vii) Also he must state why his
appeal was not made before 29/04/13, (viii) The file is to be referred back to me when a reply is
received from the Appellant.

On 5 October I responded to Directions Notice stating that the grounds of appeal had already been
submitted but confirmed the decisions which I wished to appeal related to the periods below:

a) 7 July 2010 to 3 August 2010

b) 18 January 2012 to 31 January 2012

c) 28 March 2012 to 10 April 2012

d) claim ended 28 August 2012 with no confirmation when it resumed

e) 21 November 2012 to 4 December 2012

f) 16 January 2013 to 29 January 2013

To comply with other directions it was stated that the delay in appealing the decisions was simply
down to being in the dark until receiving information from the SAR and being ignorant of the
consequences of missing National Insurance credits up until receiving confirmation from HMRC that
there were gaps which would affect pension entitlement. In regards item (f) there was a further
delay in appealing due to the time taken with GJC management exploring the possibilities of
resolving the dispute which finally concluded with the only option being to appeal.

Received Directions Notice in correspondence dated 23 October from HMCTS. The Tribunal Judge
informed that, (i) On 29/04/13 the Appellant made an appeal against a decision made by the
Respondent, (ii) The appeal was referred to the Tribunal on the basis that it did not contain
sufficient grounds, (iii) On 17/06/13 the appeal was struck out. That is still the current position,
(iv) Since then the Appellant has contacted on a number of occasions and further directions have
been made, (v) The latest development has been that the Appellant sent to the Tribunal an email
dated 05/10/13, (vi) The whole of the file is now to be copied and a copy sent to the Respondent,
(vii) The Respondent is directed to comment on the position and whether or not it is considered
whether a valid appeal has been made against any. The Respondent is directed to reply to the
Tribunal on this within 21 days after the issue of these directions.

I received correspondence (Appeal bundle) dated 18 November 2013 which included Hull Benefit
Centre Appeals Team response to Directions Notice of 15 October. In summary, the Hull office
identified there were six decisions, predominantly Labour Market Decisions and issues affecting
National Insurance Credits. It clarified that the appeal was referred to HMCTS (Tribunal) as an
invalid appeal because originally it was not known what decisions where disputed. It stated further
that its office did not deal with Labour Market appeals and so not in a position to comment on the
Judge’s direction (responsibility of Newcastle Benefit Centre Appeals Team). It therefore submitted
that the Judge’s direction should be referred to Newcastle, recommending that they consider
various legislation and guidance with regards to time constraints relevant to the validity of the
appeal(s). This was particularly with regards whether it would be reasonable to grant late
applications, where it was emphasised under guidance (DMG 6073) that their existed “Special
Circumstances” which were wholly exceptional relevant to the application.

I received correspondence from SSCSA dated 20 December 2013 with notification that the DWP had
revised their decisions in my favour with all sanctions/disallowances being lifted.

NEW ISSUES ARISING AFTER TRIBUNAL DECISION

On 6 January 2014 I emailed GJC with notification that all the decisions to sanction had been lifted
so requested a revised pension statement reflecting the number of qualifying years amended with
confirmation that all missing NI credits had been re-credited. The position was outlined regarding
additional missing NI credits as a consequence of elapsed time whilst contending decisions
(potentially another appeal) and suggested it be remedied without further need to involve another
lengthy appeal. The matter was also raised as to when and how the claim would resume. Lastly, it
was enquired about options with regards claiming compensation for the inordinate amount of time
committed to researching the appeal process, sourcing and preparing evidence to enable producing
the relevant papers for submission to the appeal.

Another manager who had taken the responsibility of dealing with matters responded on 10 January
confirming that NI credits would be awarded for appropriate periods when they (Benefit Centre)
receive copies of the decisions from the Appeal Tribunal. With regards resuming the claim etc., I
was informed that it was necessary to make a new claim and could ask for it to be backdated. A
link was provided to the relevant website to request a further pension forecast after credits have
been updated. With regards options for claiming compensation I learned that it was possible to
receive “a special payment” under certain circumstances as a direct result of maladministration for
which evidence would need to be provided in support of the costs incurred.

I attempted unsuccessfully to obtain a current statement from the website and informed the
manager at GJC as the pension forecast was a factor I relied on to decide whether to make a new
claim.

I had real concerns about the time that would be wasted providing evidence for a consolatory
payment if there was no prospect of receiving one. I also asked for detail about the kind of
expenditure that would be taken into account when assessing the loss due to the
maladministration. I expressed that my injustice comprised the time taken in producing numerous
items of correspondence, reclaiming Jobseeker's Allowance, researching legislation for the appeal
process, sourcing and preparing evidence etc., etc.

An estimate would entail assessing the time taken to produce all correspondence entered into and
then need compiling into a document along with commentary to justify those and any other costs
claimed. I (mistakenly) figured in addition this would require several hours to produce and wanted
it clarifying if the DWP consider these allowable costs before spending further time working on
assessing them.

The “several hours” stated was a massive underestimate of the time needed to document the
trouble I had been put to, plus the new disputes/appeal/complaint that would follow from having
to overcome obstacles arising after the Tribunal in order to achieve the best chance of having the
appropriate number of NI contributions allocated. The task had in fact taken several months rather
than hours.

GJC responded on 14 January with an undertaking to suggest an alternative solution (when one
found) for obtaining a pension forecast. With regards to Special Payments, it was implied that
allowable costs would be limited to postal and telephony expenditure, with the possibility of
printing costs.

I reiterated in response about concerns for additional time needed to compile evidence and asked
for assurance before beginning work on assessing time (including compiling evidence) that it would
not be disallowed. It was also stated that items suggested (postage, printer costs, paper etc.)
would be insignificant compared with the gross inconvenience which was the only costs I intended
to claim. I also requested contact details for the GJC manager.
GJC responded on 16 January, providing a telephone number for the State Pension Enquiry line. It
was reiterated regarding the claim for a Special Payment, that only costs such as postal, telephony,
paper etc., were allowable and stated that time spent was not considered to be a cost for these
purposes. The email address for the Manager of GJC was provided.

I replied on 16 January asking from where the authority came that time spent was not considered
an allowable cost and what options were available to take further action. Guidance points to it
being the department’s duty to consider whether a special payment would be appropriate, not for
it to be necessary for the aggrieved person to fight for it. The guidance states with relevance to
this that the appropriateness of making a payment should be routinely considered in any attempt to
rectify departmental maladministration, which may have resulted in a customer (or a third party)
experiencing injustice and/or hardship.

The document states with further relevance to the specific circumstances that special payment
decisions should have specific regard to, (i) the length of time it has taken to resolve a complaint;
and (ii) the time and trouble the individual had to go to, in order to obtain appropriate redress.

The correspondence later obtained (23 January) from Special Payment Unit also confirmed that not
only costs such as postal, telephony, paper etc., were considered, but also consolatory payments
for gross inconvenience resulting from maladministration if the errors made were so severe or are
over such a protracted period of time that it causes clear difficulties in the pursuit of pursuing a
justified complaint.

GJC responded on 20 January stating that the decision for Special Payments was based on DWP
National guidance and after discussing the circumstances of the application with the DWP National
Team for Special Payments, it has been forwarded to the National Special Payment Team, based at
Glasgow Northgate Benefit Centre.

Also on 20 January I emailed the GJC manager informing him that I would be bringing a complaint
with the intention of raising concerns about how matters are dealt with at GJC. The manager who I
was corresponding with was also contacted to ask whether it would be necessary to produce a
document of all correspondence as evidence of the time spent with matters. It was confirmed that
the Special Payments Team would make the decision on whether a payment would be made and
would make contact me direct if they required further evidence.

The GJC manager responded on 22 January regarding complaint options, stating it was policy to
always try and resolve matters in discussion where it was suggested in the first instance to discuss
the complaint with the manager I was dealing with. Failing a resolution through discussion there
were four further stages to escalate an unsatisfactory outcome.

On 23 January I telephoned GJC and discussed various issues including allocation of NI Credits and
bringing up to date records. It was agreed helpful for the Special Payments Team for determining
any or the level of consolatory payment if I submitted documents already held (Appeal Grounds and
Tribunal decisions). The possibility of scanning the appeal bundle consisting of around 80 pages to
further support the amount of time spent was also discussed. GJC confirmed that the documents
had been forwarded to the Special Payments Team in Glasgow. It was also confirmed that the
relevant department had been contacted regarding NI credits and made an undertaking to confirm
records were updated the following week. With regards scanning documents to further support
claim, it was suggested unnecessary, unless the Special Payments Team asked for them.

I received letter dated 23 January from Special Payments Unit (SPU) with outcome to the request
for a special payment. Its findings were that there was no evidence of maladministration by the
department with the reason supporting its decision based merely on the fact that I was able to put
in an appeal against the sanctions and won the appeal.

The letter stated that ‘consolatory payments are made in very exceptional circumstances where an
official error has had a direct adverse effect on the life of the customer and/or on the life of
another person. We cannot make a payment if we have not done anything wrong or where an error
has had minimal impact on the customer. A consolatory payment for gross inconvenience resulting
from official error will only be made if the errors made are so severe or are over such a protracted
period of time that it causes the customer clear difficulties in the pursuit of benefits or pursuing a
justified complaint.

After considering the circumstances of your request I have decided a special payment is not
appropriate.’

The option was given (if not satisfied with the special payment decision) to write to the SPU
Glasgow, providing reasons why it was felt that the decision was incorrect etc. However, it did
emphasise that the Department's Special Payment Scheme was discretionary and no process of
appeal against the amount of a special payment.

Notwithstanding the apparently justified practice of indiscriminately sanctioning, the matters had
largely been down to maladministration in the appeal process, i.e., losing half of the appeal form
and not addressing it despite countless letters highlighting the anomaly.

I received an email from GJC on 31 January with an update confirming that Hull BDC had received
details of Appeal and that NI records had been adjusted accordingly. The adjustment meant that
for 2010/11 and 2011/12 Tax Years, 52 credits were awarded for each year and for 2012/13 there
were 39 credits awarded. It was questioned if the 39 credits awarded for 2012/13 was correct, with
the doubt arising because of a claim that was back-dated to 29 August 2012 may not have been
accounted for.

HMRC sent me a letter dated 3 February stating there was no longer a shortfall of NI credits for
2010/11 but no reference to 2011/12, despite adjusted records supposedly accounting for Tribunal
decisions for both 2010/11 and 2011/12 tax years, having 52 credits awarded. This raised a doubt
as to whether the 2011/12 tax year’s credits had been allocated.

I received a letter dated 6 February from SPU largely comprising a chronology of events adding that
the head of the SPU suggested releasing details used in making the decision. Evidently GJC stated
that the decision to turn down NI credits which were subsequently appealed against, related to
only one period (7 July 2010 to 13 August 2010) when in fact there were six decisions.

Under heading, “What the known effects of the error are”, it states: “Originally, the claimant had
not been awarded National Insurance credits for the period 07/07/2010 to 13/08/2010. These have
been subsequently awarded.

Under another heading, “What has been done to put the matter right and to ensure that the error
is not repeated”, GJC implies that the Tribunal was wrong as he expresses he did “not feel that an
error as such has taken place by the Department, rather a decision at the Appeal Tribunal was
found in favour of the claimant and when he has received this decision he has asked for
compensation.”

The CPU states that when it asked for additional information, it received the appeal court decisions
of 12 December 2013 (to over turn the sanctions), the letter of 2 May 2013 asking for a SAR and a
letter explaining the reasons for the missing credits.
POINT 1: There are concerns why only one of the six decisions has been singled out (relating to the
period 7 July 2010 to 13 August 2010) when in fact there were six decisions. Issues, seemingly
impossible to resolve, are ongoing surrounding qualifying years pension entitlement relating to the
National Insurance credits in question.

POINT 2: GJC appeared to be making the case that any error has been inconsequential because the
sanctioned NI credits relating to the period 7 July 2010 to 13 August 2010 have been subsequently
awarded.

POINT 3: Although GJC implies that by determining the sanctions unlawful, the Tribunal came to
the wrong decision, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has not appealed the decision.

POINT 4: The description of the “additional information” sent, doesn’t indicate that the grounds of
appeal had been submitted which had been agreed to be sent and to a significant degree would
have provided evidence of the gross inconvenience caused and the length of time the dispute had
gone on.

POINT 5: The decision had been made to submit a complaint about GJC because issues concerning
the allocation of credits affecting the number of qualifying year’s pension entitlement (after
Tribunal decisions) were ceaseless, with constant obstruction put in the way by GJC. Therefore,
there was little point providing reasons why I felt the SPU’s decision was incorrect, or supplying
additional information regarding relevant facts until the subsequent issues arising since the
Tribunal decision had been resolved. There has been no contact from GJC since 28 April 2014
regarding outstanding issues and did not envisage there to be.

On 14 February I emailed GJC manager stating that it was likely that the issues would be escalated
ultimately to the Parliamentary Ombudsman so there would then be an avenue to have issues
judicially reviewed. I outlined potential areas for complaint and requested all records in relation to
which staff, and at what stage they were aware about the failures that have led to issues
continuing unresolved for so long. To conclude, it was queried if release of any of the details would
require another SAR submitting.

There was no response from the GJC manager so on 20 February I delivered a hard copy of the
email to the reception of GJC, and obtained a receipt stating particulars and that the copy would
be handed to the GJC manager.

The GJC manager responded on 21 February regarding complaint as the issues had not been
satisfactorily resolved, outlining the options to escalate it being either by contacting my MP or the
DWP Director General for Operations. My 14 February email had been treated as a SAR for which
the DWP Data Manager would provide the requested information in line with statutory timescales.

The DWP gave an undertaking to issue the information (All Jobseekers Allowance records) as soon
as possible, and within 40 days of receiving the SAR (19 February).

On16 March 2014 I sent a letter under cover of email sent to GJC, outlining a number of queries in
connection with NI credits, SAR, Tribunal and the SPU. The CPU and various other recipients
deemed relevant were copied in. The correspondence extends to some detail and therefore will not
be reproduced here.

Resent on 20 March adding a request to confirm whether the concerns raised would be looked into
and explain why there has been no acknowledgement to previous requests for confirmation.

On 24 March I emailed GJC intending to establish why it was proving almost impossible to get
answers or even acknowledgement. I suggested they were stonewalling in the hope that it would be
difficult to highlight the gross negligence that way, or perhaps provoke a response it may then
consider unreasonable and use as evidence to divert scrutiny from the department.

In the absence of a response on 25 March I handed a hard copy of the letter sent 16 March and
accompanying email to an advisor at GJC, obtaining receipt stating particulars and for whom it was
the attention of.

GJC responded on 25 March addressing some of the issues raised in correspondence of 16 March.
Despite the doubt raised by HMRC, it was confirmed that 52 weeks NI credits for 2011/12 had been
awarded as well as for the 2010/11 Tax Year. It was confirmed that the claim had been backdated
to the 29 August 2012, and as a consequence awarded NI credits for the period 29 August 2012 to 16
September 2012 with a total 49 credits awarded for the 2012/13 tax year.

It was unclear where the discrepancy (10 weeks credits) had arisen because of the incomplete
information in the SAR. It was suspected that a typing error (or similar) was responsible where it
stated previously that there were 39 credits allocated for 2012/13.

On 26 March I emailed GJC querying the 3 missing credits for the 2012/13 tax year. I suggested that
this may have been down to a typing error on the part of the Tribunal as two of the decisions
related to sanctions both covering the same period (28 March 2012 to 10 April 2012). The
assumption being that because of this, a decision had not been accounted for by Hull BDC and
consequently credits not reinstated (presumably the 3 missing credits). It was expressed that
because of the apparent typing error it was unsure as to the period for which the sanction covered
in relation to the Tribunal Decision dated 11 September 2012.

Because of the incomplete information in the SAR it was not possible to confirm the decision(s) I
wished to appeal relating to a grey area for a period that a claim ended on 28 August 2012 with no
confirmation when it resumed. The assumption was that the 3 missing credits may have been
accounted for around this time.

The GJC contacted me on 27 March stating that the Tribunal had not made a mistake and the
apparent typing error was down to being sanctioned for the same period twice for two separate
reasons. He also discovered from discussions with Hull BDC over which weeks were missing that I
had not been awarded a credit for the week 8-14 April 2012. With the error rectified, my records
showed 50 credits for the 2012/13 tax year. It was confirmed that my most recent JSA claim, in
February 2014, was backdated to 29 January 2013 as requested and so NI Credits awarded from 29
January 2013.

The disputed 2 credits lacking for the 2012/13 tax year were apparently not related to sanctions,
rather the periods in question did not qualify for NI Credits because the claim had not run
uninterrupted from a Sunday to a Saturday (the criteria entitling one to a full week). It was stated
that the two weeks missing were 26 August 2012 to 1 September 2012 and 27 January 2013 to 2
February 2013.

It appeared that the two weeks missing coincided with claims which had been back-dated meaning
that although the claim covered each consecutive day of the periods in question, it did not run
continuously. The claim had been interrupted as a result of having to be back-dated after being
wrongly terminated, thus creating a gap.

On 27 March I contacted GJC. In relation to the explanation regarding a qualifying week I expressed
my opinion that a glitch in the computer system would be the likely cause of disentitlement of NI
credits in back-dated claims. I asked that my records were manually adjusted so there were 52
weeks awarded for 2012/13, in light of the claim (in both cases) ending and having to be back-
dated in circumstances out of my control.

GJC explained that I was not entitled to NI Credits for the two weeks in question because the Social
Security (Credits Only) Regulations of 1975 were not satisfied, rather than any flaw in the computer
system. It was also explained that that those were the Regulations that stated the circumstances in
which credits are awarded and define a contribution week, so there was no discretion that could be
used.

The Social Security (Credits) Regulations 1975 appeared not, as was stated, to "define a
contribution week". I received information requested (SAR) “All Jobseekers Allowance records”
dated 28 March 2014.

On 31 March I emailed GJC with a number of queries for which no definitive answer had been
forthcoming which were (i) The Social Security (Credits) Regulations 1975, (ii) Appeal (23 April
2013), (iii) Disentitled credits for 2012/13 tax year, (iv) Sanctioned twice for same period (28 March
to 10 April 2012. In the case of the second item, however, this was in relation to the
maladministration mentioned already (the incomplete GL24) but brought to light after receiving
information from the SAR dated 28 March 2014 and so will be reproduced here.

APPEAL (23 APRIL 2013)

This element of the correspondence (along with delay in responding to SAR) helps distinguish the
complaint as one of maladministration rather than merely about unlawfully sanctioning (the latter
being apparently accepted owing to there being an appeal process).

Information received from the SAR dated 28 March 2014 (second SAR) in respect of "All Jobseekers
Allowance records" revealed the complete details of GL24. None of the information was missing,
i.e., it included information that the Hull BDC Appeals team and Tribunal subsequently asked for.

From this it seems GJC had not transferred the complete form to Hull BDC Appeals team, rather
only one of the two pages. This seems to be the only explanation for Hull requesting in the 7 May
2013 letter that I provide in writing information already submitted. The same letter asked for
specific information that was, at the time, not held; the reasons for which had already been stated
on GL24 when originally submitted.

The Hull team asked to provide a signature. The second SAR confirms that GL24 was signed
(unknown earlier as no copy retained). I was therefore previously unable to confirm that the form
had in fact been signed, and could only from memory describe the reasons I had given for why the
grounds of appeal would be delayed (another of the requests from Hull). The third request from
Hull was that the decision I wished to appeal be identified. The reason for not being able to
disclose this had already been stated on GL24 and since receiving the second SAR could be
confirmed.

On the balance of probabilities, the complete form would not have been sent to Hull BDC Appeals
team with the likely error being that the same page would have been duplicated when copied by
one department and subsequently forwarded to another. This is corroborated with a Directions
Notice from the Tribunal asking for similar information as Hull had asked for. The Directions Notice
was accompanied with 2 copies of the same page (half of form GL24 duplicated) i.e., there was no
copy of the page that included my signature and the other information requested by the Tribunal/
Hull BDC, despite that information having been originally submitted.
This suggests the appeal escalated to Tribunal, merely on account of the Hull team not being
provided all the details. However, what makes the error more serious is if, as it is likely, one page
had been duplicated, how it had not been identified and traced to where the error had occurred.

If Hull BDC had the complete form why would it have subsequently asked for it to be signed and for
information which had already been explained on GL24 could not be provided until the SAR had
been processed?

The form (GL24) WAS SIGNED, it was stated that there was "NO LETTER" where it asked for the date
on the letter about the decision, and where it asked to be provided reasons why I disagreed with
the decision the following was stated:

“I am appealing several decisions. I don’t know the reasons for the decisions, hence the delay. I
need to obtain information which involves the Information Commissioner which could take several
weeks to obtain, if ever. The delay is due to not having been informed of any reasons.”

The letter of 7 May 2013 from Hull BDC contained the following:

The law says we can only deal with an appeal when it has been made in the right way. We need
more information. Please tell us in writing (i) Which decision you want to appeal against (iii) The
reason why you want to appeal against this decision, please give more details as to why you think
the decision is wrong (iii) We need you to sign it yourself, or give proper authority for the person
who signed it to act as your representative.

On 4 April GJC contacted me stating that the four points I’d raised were being looked into. On 16
April I emailed GJC asking for an up-date with emphasis on item 3 (Disentitled credits for 2012/13
tax year). I expressed that unless the decision relating to disentitled credits for the two weeks in
2012/13 was lifted, an appeal would be submitted on the grounds that disentitlement (the cause of
which were backdated claims) was as a consequence of the DWP’s maladministration. I was
determined in my Tribunal Appeal that in cases where a claimant is registered for credits only, a
sanction or disallowance cannot be applied.

There was no acknowledgement so I sent an appeal on 18 April (Form GL24) under cover of email to
the GJC appealing the decision (28 March) of the refusal to allocate the two missing NI credits
relating to the 2012/13 tax year. It was asked to confirm receipt of the correspondence and for
assurance that the matter would be proceeded with in a timely manner. I received confirmation on
23 April that GL24 had been passed onto their Benefit Centre who would be in touch.

On 27 April I contacted GJC querying the number of qualifying year’s state pension that showed
from a pension forecast obtained that day saying I had 27 qualifying years state pension up to the
tax year ending 5 April 2014. On assuming issues under dispute (tax year 2012/13), had not been
resolved and therefore not included, it appeared that the 2013/14 tax year (for which 52 weeks
should have been credited) had not qualified. The qualifying number of years should have been 28,
not 27 and was asked for this matter to be looked into as well as the issues raised in
correspondence of 31 March.

GJC contacted me on 28 April with an undertaking to seek clarification over the exact number of
qualifying years, and confirm once it was known. However, the undertaking was never acted on and
there was no contact since.

Hull Benefit Centre sent correspondence dated 9 May 2014 with notification that they could credit
NI contributions for the period from 27 January 2013 to 5 April 2014. There was no reference on the
letter so not known whether it was a decision to the appeal sent 18 April or a standard notification.
The letter explained that if I contacted them within 1 month of the date of the letter they would
explain more about the decision.

I wrote on 3 June to Hull Benefit Centre asking for an explanation, a written statement of reasons
for the decision and (if the decision was in relation to the appeal sent 18 April) to look again at the
decision to see if it could be changed.

I submitted the reasons why I wished it reviewing anticipating that the decision was in relation to
the appeal. The NI contributions credited for the period 27 January 2013 to 5 April 2014 addressed
only one of the two missing weeks appealed (27 January 2013 to 2 February 2013). The second
missing week appealed (26 August 2012 to 1 September 2012) had not been addressed. Assuming it
was the appeal decision, it was not confirmed whether it had been successful nor was there any
evidence it had been considered. The letter was never responded to.

Another issue had arisen from a letter sent by Hull Benefit Centre dated 7 July 2014. It said that
following a recent change, an allowance (assumed NI credits) cannot be paid from 30.1.13 because
the law says so. No reason was given and the letter did not state the duration for which an
allowance cannot be paid. The letter said either to write or telephone if wanting to know the
reasons for there being a change. It had already been confirmed that my most recent claim in
February 2014 was backdated to 29 January 2013 and so NI Credits awarded from that date. Hull
Benefit Centre had also stated it could credit NI contributions for the period from 27 January 2013
to 5 April 2014.

I wrote on 14 July to Hull Benefit Centre asking for an explanation, a written statement of reasons
for the decision and to look again at the decision to see if it could be changed. A copy of the letter
sent 3 June regarding previous decision was enclosed to remind Hull Benefit Centre that I awaited a
reply. The letter was never responded to.

Did the organisation answer all of the issues you raised in your complaint?

If yes, please go to section 4.

If no, please tell us the issues that they did not address.
The extent of injustice I have been caused has evidently nowhere near been appreciated.

It has been exactly 4 years from when my appeal was submitted to receiving my final letter on 30
March 2017 from the Independent Case Examiner. This length of time has been necessary for the
process to reveal all the official error that has so far been uncovered. Each subsequent stage has
uncovered something additional to previous stages of investigation.

For example it has been discovered as a result of the ICE’s investigation that I was not obliged, as a
National Insurance Credits only claimant, to engage or participate with the Work Programme and
therefore should not have been referred to a Decision Maker for consideration of a sanction
decision. However, according to JCP records my claim had been incorrectly closed on two occasions
for failing to attend Work Programme appointments.

NO RECOMMENDATIONS

The ICE has made no recommendations as a result of all the toil and trouble I have gone to in order
to bring these serious failings to the attention of people who I thought would be able to lessen the
ordeal of future victims of the system. I am genuinely offended by this as I am about the failure to
recognise that the straightforward issues (paragraph 117 of the report), if they were clear-cut
could not have taken 4 years to establish the full extent of the injustice. You would have to be in
complete denial to not automatically arrive at the conclusion that JCP staff have been
unsatisfactorily supervised so they have been free to abuse their positions to unnecessarily cause
hardship for whatever purpose. The seriousness of this case would have warranted for example a
safety measure being recommended that would ensure after a set period of time any matter which
had not been resolved would be alerted to someone assigned responsibility to intervene.

A decision to make no recommendations in such extreme circumstances as these sends out the
message that an aggrieved person’s time has no value at all. If those making these decisions were
faced with the option of either resigning or undertaking a 12 month period being paid 10p per hour
I would guarantee none would opt for the latter.

GRUDGE

It has not been addressed the likelihood that the people who have dealt with my issues (and failed
to) have abused their position because either a personal grudge was held against me or a grudge in
general is held against people questioning their actions.

It was not evident from any of the letters that the people dealing with the matter had been aware
about the note on GL24 explaining that I was awaiting information being dealt with under the Data
Protection Act in order for my Grounds of Appeal to be set out.

Not only that, I had on numerous occasions sent correspondence reiterating the fact that I could
not submit the requested information until the SAR had been complied with. My SAR had been
submitted on 2 May 2013 and didn’t receive the information until 20 August 2013.

It has been 4 years from 29 March 2013 when my appeal was submitted to receiving my final letter
on 30 March 2017 from the Independent Case Examiner.

NO RECORD OF EVENTS EXPRESSED IN ICE’s REPORT

(JCP unable to confirm why claim was closed from 30 January 2013)

Para 11 of the report says in relation my claim being closed from 30 January 2013 that JCP has
been unable to confirm why.

I have checked the information I received dated 20 August 2013 in response to the SAR which I
submitted on 2 May 2013 and the following explanation is given:

“We have recorded a further disallowance for the period 16/01/2013 to 29/01/2013 and I have
attached a second document detailing the documents used to refer the doubt, make a decision on
the doubt and then input the decision onto the Benefit System. This second document is called "Mr
Copies Document 2".

This decision was input onto the Benefit System on 30/01/2013.

Further to this disallowance you were then required to complete a form JSA4 RR to reestablish your
interest to continue to sign as actively seeking and available for work after this disallowance,
however I have provided below notes from the Labour Market System that detail evidence that you
had refused to comply with this request. Unfortunately, without this form, we cannot verify that
your circumstances have remained the same and that you also wish to re-establish your entitlement
to National Insurance Credits. This means that we then closed your claim from 30/01/2013.”
(Contacting the Information commissioner)

The Independent Case Examiner stresses in her report at paragraph 18 that it was unclear whether
I’d contacted the Information Commissioner about the SAR at any time.

To clarify – I did not contact the Information Commissioner. I assumed initially that the Information
Commissioner was at fault for the delay regarding the SAR, not the DWP. It was later apparent that
responsibility was entirely with the DWP to release information under the Data Protection Act.
However, I chased up the SAR with GJC as recorded first on 22 May 2013 (Hull BDC kept informed)
and again on 5 August 2013 when I asked for the contact of the person who the SAR had been sent
so I could make my own enquiries. In the absence of a reply I re-sent the query on 7, 12 and 13 of
August 2013. On 13 August SSCSA was copied in. My query was only responded to after I expressed
in another email on 14 August that I wished to make a formal complaint about the staff member.

(No record of meeting 9 April 2013)

Para 17 of the report says in relation to the 9 April 2013 meeting that ‘JCP have no record of this
meeting so are unable to advise my office why this information regarding the specific details of the
decisions could not be obtained’.

My records reveal that on 27 March 2013 I was sent an email by GJC to arrange a meeting on the 9
April 2013 which I responded to on 28 April agreeing that I would attend (See details appended to
this complaint).

I also checked the information I received dated 28 March 2014 in relation to the second SAR (All
Jobseekers Allowance records) and the following is logged for 9 April 2013 (also appended):

‘ADV - cust attended to discuss ASE and Credits awards. Seen by Maggie McGeever. Cust issued with
SAR details. Offered GL24 but cust stated already has some copies. Advised again that he needs to
submit claim to JSA if he wishes to continue with JSA claim following ASE disallowance. JSA
conditionality reiterated.’

I have included below paragraph 12 of my 26 August 2014 complaint for a fuller description of what
was discussed at the meeting:

‘Appointment arranged (27.3.13) for meeting on 9.4.13 with Mrs McGeever at which departmental
targets and regional league tables discussed (see Grounds of Appeal pages 7–8 & Annex C) and
suggested may have prompted sanctions/disallowance leading to termination of claim. Discussed
prevalent press coverage at the time criticising Jobcentres encouraging staff, re sanction targets,
(see Grounds of Appeal pages 7–8 & Annex D) but dismissed by GJC for having no relevance to
dispute.

Unable to obtain particulars of sanctions leading to deficiency in NI credits because of alleged Data
Protection restrictions. I was therefore required to submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) to
authorise GJC to access my personal information. GJC discouraged exercising appeal right but
advised if doing so to submit appeal form (GL24) without delay and to state that the ‘grounds of
appeal’ would follow once details of the SAR had been disclosed.

NOTE: I inadvertently became the Appellant in a Tribunal case against the Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions because Hull Benefit Delivery Centre (BDC) Appeals team evidently had not been
sent the complete GL24. It has now been discovered that in all probability GJC sent Hull a copy of
GL24, having duplicated the same page so Hull BDC were lacking half the information.’

(Appeal referred to HMCTS on an unknown date)

Paragraph 28 of the report highlights that the date on which the appeal was referred by Hull BDC to
HMCTS is unknown. However, an indication when it was referred is given in two letters from the
Tribunal Clerk (to Hull BDC and myself) dated 19 June 2013. In both letters the Clerk refers to the
date being 29 May 2013 (See letters appended to this complaint).

(Unclear what correspondence you meant)

Paragraph 28 of the report refers to the letter I sent to HMCTS on 11 June 2013 saying; ‘please
refer to all my correspondence in relation to this matter’, in response to the 5 June directions
asking me to send further details of my grounds for appealing within 14 days.

The correspondence I referred to was, (i) a letter I emailed to Hull BDC on 22 May 2013 regarding
the SAR (2 May 2013) which supported why I was unable to provide further details in relation to my
appeal, (ii) letter I sent to Hull BDC on 23 May 2013 apologising for being unable to supply further
details, but referred to the explanation I had given on form GL24 (re, awaiting SAR) and that it
could take 40 working days, and (iii) appeal form GL24.

My understanding (rightly or wrongly) was that all this information should have been forwarded by
Hull BDC to HMCTS for the Tribunal’s consideration. I hold records to support that the Tribunal had
been referred the complaint on or shortly before 29 May 2013, therefore on the balance of
probabilities Hull BDC was in receipt of all the above documents before referring the appeal. On
that basis, the judge’s directions of 5 June 2013 and subsequent directions asking to be sent further
details makes little sense knowing that they couldn’t be until the SAR had been complied with.

(No record of emails or telephone call)

Paragraph 31 of the report states that JCP has no record of my email enquiries of 1, 10 and 11 July
2013 or the telephone call around the same time to raise concerns about the appeal. These emails
were sent to DWP enquiries on those dates and previously on 30 June because Hull BDC neither
responded to emails (22 May & 27 June 2013) nor letter sent 23 May (See appended to this
complaint). My comment regarding Hull BDC having never responded to any correspondence was not
referring to these emails, because they were sent to DWP enquiries.

I am unable to produce evidence that I telephoned Hull BDC to raise concerns about the appeal and
can only say that the number (0845 608 8546) was provided on Hull Appeals team 7 May 2013 letter.
The person taking the call was unable to identify the appeal (or the person dealing with it) from
any of the references on the letter. Although I can’t be certain, I suspect the telephone number I
had obtained for the Social Security & Child Support Appeals (SSCSA) would have been obtained
from that phone call.

For what it is worth, I had hand written on the Hull Appeals team 7 May 2013 letter “Samantha.
Team 2 Contact 12:20”.

(Unknown documents sent to officer ‘A’ on 23 January 2014)

Paragraph 60 of the report refers to documents I sent to officer A on 23 January 2014 in support of
my request for a Special Payment, however, the Independent Case Examiner says that she does not
know what the documents were.

I have checked my records and can confirm that there were two pdf documents attached to an
email I sent to officer A on 23 January 2014 (See appended to this complaint); (i) My Appeal
Grounds dated 1 September 2013 for the Tribunal and, (ii) a letter of 20 December 2013 from
HMCTS providing details of the 6 sanctions/disallowances which the DWP had revised in my favour.
(No record of telephone call on 23 January 2014)

Paragraph 74 of the report states that “there is no record of a telephone call that day” in respect
of a call on 23 January 2014 during which it had been agreed that my grounds of appeal would be
forwarded to the Special Payments Team.

I have checked my records and found two emails (See appended to this complaint) both sent on 23
January 2014 that support my version of events, i.e., that there was a telephone call that day
discussing as I asserted.

Regarding whether or not the grounds of appeal had been forwarded, a letter from the Special
Payments Unit of 6 February 2014 stating what information had been submitted did not include my
grounds of appeal. In that letter it was stated; “I asked for additional information and received the
appeal court decisions of 12/12/13 in your favour, your letter of 02/05/13 when you ask for a
Subject Access Request and a letter explaining the reasons for your missing credits.”

NEW ISSUE

Paragraph 103 of the report says that my claim was closed from 5 May 2015 (JCP have said that I
last signed on 9 September 2014).

I did not end the claim (this information is new to me). I had been signing as a NI Credit only
claimant by post after re-registering. At some point the declaration forms I used to receive stopped
coming. I assume the 9 September 2014 would have been when I was last sent a form to sign. I
received no notification from JCP and made an assumption that I had the full 30 qualifying years
State Pension entitlement and that was why I no longer received declaration forms. Consequently I
made nothing of it. However, paragraph 15 says that to qualify for full New State Pension I would
need 35 qualifying years. I am presumably now back to square 1 as I appear to be in the same
position I was 4 years ago with a number of qualifying years short.

ICE’s REPLY TO QUERIES MADE ON THE INVESTIGATION REPORT

The Independent Case Examiner replied in a letter dated 30 March 2017 to emails I had sent on 11
and 13 March 2017 (See details appended to this complaint). The ICE considered my comments and
observations to be a formal response to the report. However, I had not got that far; these were
preliminary queries to sound-out the likelihood of achieving anything by asking for the decision to
be reviewed, though I acquiesced not seeing anything would be achieve by pursuing the matter.

In the process of setting out this complaint I have since found a number of anomalies relating
predominantly to Grimsby Jobcentre claiming that no records were held of meetings, telephone
calls etc., which I had referred to in my complaint and representations. Those have been recorded
with evidence to support my version of events above. However, I have further representations to
make on the 30 March 2017 letter which I have set out below:

(You had not responded to Hull BDC's letter of 7 May 2013)

It has been incorrectly stated by the ICE that I had not responded to Hull BDC's letter of 7 May
2013. I did respond to it by sending a holding email on 22 May 2013 undertaking to provide more
detail when I was further informed. Attached was the letter of 2 May 2013 authorising the GJC
access to my personal information under the Data Protection Act 1998 which supported why I was
unable to provide further details in relation to my appeal. A letter was also sent on 23 May 2013 to
Hull BDC (See appended to this complaint) apologising for being unable to supply further details,
but referred to the explanation I had given on form GL24 (re, awaiting SAR) and that it could be
several weeks coming.
It was reasonable to assume initially that the correspondence was just a generic letter that had
been randomly triggered. It should have been clear to Hull BDC from my explanation on form GL24
that I could not identify the decision under appeal or provide the appeal grounds until the
information had been provided which was being delayed because of data protection restrictions.

It was irrational for Hull BDC to ask for this information if it had been properly considered by
someone, hence, the assumption it had been sent erroneously. I had after-all replied to two
previous letters on 4th and 7th of December 2012 in respect of letters sent by Hull LM DMA dated
29 November and 5 December 2012 with no evidence that they received or considered them.

(Appeal form being forwarded to Hull BDC incomplete)

The ICE explains that it was because I did not reply to Hull BDC’s letter that the papers were sent
to HMCTS to ask whether the appeal could be accepted. Hull BDC stated that the reason for the
referral was "the decision under appeal cannot be identified", and although I had been asked for
sufficient grounds for the appeal and details of the decision under appeal, I had not responded to
its letter of 7 May 2013 (I did reply on 22 May).

Although the 7 May 2013 correspondence stated that ‘you must reply within 14 days of the date of
this letter’ and I was 1 day late, there is no reason why Hull BDC would not have had all of the
correspondence I had sent including my letter of 23 May 2013 and enclosure before it referred the
matter to the Tribunal. It is known from records that the Clerk to the Tribunal received the appeal
on 29 May 2013. However, as aforementioned it was irrational for Hull BDC to ask for this
information after explaining on form GL24 why I couldn’t and that I had in fact signed the form. To
recap, it was asked for in writing, (i) Which decision you want to appeal against (iii) The reason
why you want to appeal against this decision, please give more details as to why you think the
decision is wrong (iii) We need you to sign it yourself, or give proper authority for the person who
signed it to act as your representative.

The ICE goes on to explain that subsequent to the referral, on 6 June 2013 a Tribunal Judge
directed me to send to the Tribunal further details of my grounds for appealing and any comments
that I wished the Tribunal to take into account. I sent an undated reply which HMCTS received on
11 June 2013, and the appeal was struck out on 17 June 2013 because the letter I sent "contained
no useful information".

It was irrational that none of the correspondence I had received about the appeal contained any
evidence that my reasons had been considered, i.e., that I was unable to provide details of the
appeal until I had received them myself from DWP Data Manager. It is therefore reasonable to
suspect that correspondence had been mishandled.

The judge’s Direction Notice of 6 June 2013 had stapled to it referral papers from Hull BDC to the
Tribunal (including a copy of GL24) for a decision as to whether the appeal was duly made, though
none of the correspondence I had sent to Hull BDC regarding the SAR had been included, nor
mentioned.

The document remains in tact, i.e., the staple holding it together has never been removed. The
page (GL24) which included my signature and explanation why I could not provide the appeal
grounds was missing but in its place was a duplicate of the first page which provides a credible
answer for why the Tribunal asked for further details of my grounds for appealing and at various
times it was mentioned that the form needed to be signed.

For example the Clerk to the Tribunal wrote to me in a letter dated 19 June 2013 saying that he
had received a letter on 29 May 2013 saying that I wanted to appeal but he could only deal with my
appeal if the letter, (i) was signed by me; or signed by somebody I had authorised to help me with
my appeal, and, told him which decision I was appealing against; and, gives the reasons why I
thought the decision was wrong. He could not deal with my appeal because my letter did not have
all of this information and closed my appeal.

The ICE goes on to contend my assertions that GL24 was mishandled putting greater significance on
the signature. The ICE interprets the 19 June letter to mean that the Tribunal had closed my
appeal not because I had not signed the appeal but because I had not provided the dates of the
decisions I was appealing and reasons why I thought they were wrong. It was argued that the letter
listed all the reasons why an appeal could not be considered and could be rejected if only one of
the listed reasons wasn't present in the appeal form.

It would appear to be academic whether the Tribunal closed my appeal because of the signature or
because I had not provided my grounds for appealing because the page (GL24) that the Tribunal
was apparently missing contained both my signature and the explanation that the grounds for
appealing may take several weeks to obtain.

It was the ICE’s view that whilst HMCTS sent me two copies of the front page of GL24, it did not
mean that the complete form was not sent to HMCTS by the Hull BDC. This of course is true but the
fact it was, considered along with all the other circumstances, presents a greater argument in the
public interest for it to be investigated than for a blind eye to be turned.

The failure to provide all relevant documents would explain why the Tribunal Judge deemed the
letter I sent on 11 June 2013 referring to ‘all my correspondence’, contained no useful information.
However, what can not be explained once corresponding directly with the Tribunal is when they
replied they appeared to be responding to someone who was communicating in a foreign language.
There was no evidence that the Tribunal at any time took on board – from the countless times it
was explained – that the information it required was out of my hands until the DWP had played its
part in complying with the SAR.

(Consolatory payment)

The extent of injustice I have been caused has nowhere near been appreciated. The process from
when my appeal was submitted to receiving my final letter from the ICE has taken 4 years.
Admittedly around 1 year of that I was able to forget about the issues whilst awaiting the outcome
of the ICE’s investigation and other shorter periods in-between the various stages. However, for
much of the rest of the period it required wholly unacceptable amounts of my time dedicated to
trying to resolve issues that were the fault of Jobcentre Plus whose staff I engaged with seemed to
put as many obstacles in the way as humanly possible. On the other hand, the 4 years doesn’t
include the time I was unnecessarily made to jump through hoops prior to discovering I had missing
NI credits due to my claim being incorrectly closed a number of times.

The Work Programme, which a NI credit only claimant is not obliged to attend, caused endless
amount of my time being wasted and apparently led to two of the incorrectly closed claims
because of a failure to attend appointments.

The guidance re “Financial Redress for Maladministration” was referred to in my 26 August 2013
complaint (paragraph 52) and submitted along with other supporting papers to highlight the further
injustice caused by GJC not following the guidance. It should not have been necessary for me to
request compensation, as page 11 of the document states ‘the appropriateness of making a
payment should be routinely considered in any attempt to rectify departmental maladministration,
which may have resulted in a customer (or a third party) experiencing injustice and/or hardship’.
The document states with further relevance to my specific circumstances that ‘special payment
decisions should have specific regard to the length of time it has taken to resolve a complaint; and
the time and trouble the individual had to go to, in order to obtain appropriate redress.’

After I had enquired about options to claim compensation, I was still met with obstruction even
continuing with the Special Payment Unit. The most appropriate action both in terms of limiting my
wasted time and the department’s resources would have been to recognise the obvious injustice
and dealt with it in accordance with the guidance.

I have acknowledged that any consolatory payment which might be deemed appropriate, would
unlikely go a fraction of the way to compensate the hundreds of hours spent engaged in the
dispute, however, it is beyond me how a conscious decision was made to consider an appropriate
sum would amount to anything less than the maximum that could have been awarded without
referral to the Complaints, Redress and Stewardship Team (CReST). This maximum, according to
the Guide for Special Payment Officers is £500 which would in any event only represent around 1
per cent of an amount that would realistically compensate for the overall injustice. Why then was
it considered appropriate to pay £150 less than that sum?

Evidence suggests that these guidelines are ignored and in practice staff are required to routinely
oppose awarding compensation. Considering the impact these matters have had on my life over the
protracted period of time, and that a conservative sum of compensation would be in the thousands
of pounds rather than hundreds, if the DWP were genuine about acknowledging the gross
inconvenience caused there would have been no hesitation in referring the case to CReST.

A significant amount of time was expended dealing with appealing the original decision to refuse a
payment. Clearly the failure to follow guidance, and the initiation of unwarranted disputes after it
was realised that the law had been incorrectly applied, prolonged the matter a further 40 months
beyond the 8 months it could have been concluded by.

Though it has been explained that consolatory payments are discretionary there comes with that
discretion a responsibility to make the decision deemed most appropriate in the circumstances and
therefore, should not be determined arbitrarily.

How have you or the person you represent, been affected by what has
happened?
It was highlighted that I had a deficiency in NI contributions from a pension forecast which led by
chance to discovering that I been sanctioned and could therefore appeal. I could as easily have not
found out about the numerous missing NI credits, as the investigation has revealed, GJC has been
unable to provide evidence that I had been notified for many of the sanctions. Had I not found out
and pursued the matter, a situation could have arisen where on approaching retirement there
would be insufficient time remaining to make up the shortfall and by that time the option to make
up missing contributions by payment would be lost resulting in pension being paid at a reduced
rate.

The extent to which I have been affected by the maladministration is apparent from details set out
so far in this complaint and the case history which I have provided separately. The issues however
predominantly concern the amount of time that I have needed to dedicate to dealing with matters
to ensure that the errors have been corrected.
It has taken me 4 years from submitting my appeal to arriving at this stage. Though there have
been periods of dormancy, there have been other times when a significant amount of my time has
been taken up, particularly at the appeal stage and then to address numerous additional issues
arising upon the appeal’s conclusion. The amount of time consumed from around April 2013 to
September 2014 addressing the maladministration and obstruction had literally amounted to
hundreds of hours. If I had given in at any time up to this point, the full extent of the
maladministration would not have been known as each subsequent stage has uncovered official
errors additional to previous stages of the process.

For example, the ICE’s investigation has discovered to my detriment another instance of my claim
being closed in May 2015 without being notified. The implications of this are that I no longer have
the full qualifying years Pension contributions because for full New State Pension I would need 35
qualifying years rather than 30.

Another discovery has been that I was not obliged, as a NI Credits only claimant, to engage or
participate with the Work Programme and therefore should not have been referred to a Decision
Maker for consideration of a sanction decision. However, according to the ICE’s investigation, my
claim had been incorrectly closed on two occasions for failing to attend Work Programme
appointments. Therefore, the 4 years doesn’t include the time I was unnecessarily made to jump
through hoops prior to discovering I had missing NI credits due to my claim being incorrectly closed.
The Work Programme, which a NI credit only claimant is not obliged to attend, caused endless
amount of my time being wasted.

COMPLAINT 26 AUGUST 2014

Under the header ‘Matters surrounding the complaint’ (paras 92 to 141) are of particular relevance
to how I have been affected by what has happened.

Section 4: Putting it right

If we are able to take on your complaint, what would you like us to

achieve for you? (Please see guidance notes.)
It is unlikely these failings are unique to my complaint, so it would be satisfying if in respect of the
inordinate amount of time that has been wasted, if lessons learned from this complaint are also
learned by all Jobcentre plus branches and other government departments which similarly cause
hardship for members of the public. Considering the destructive effect such failings can have on
people’s lives (including health), there would be merit in debating in parliament the difficulties
members of the public face dealing with public bodies.

The outcome is not one that is solely seeking to resolve the outstanding issues. It is also reasonable
that an offer is made for compensation in recognition of the fact that the described 'considerable
service failures' has been far more serious and which more reflects what has incontrovertibly been
the gross injustice suffered as opposed the extremely downplayed 'confusion' and inconvenience
caused over a protracted period of time. However, I am realistic in my expectations that any
consolatory payment which might be deemed appropriate would not go a fraction of the way to
compensate for the amount of time and effort that has been necessary to dedicated to this matter.
The inordinate number of hours consumed has extended beyond that attributable to the difficulties
with the JCP. Though this element is obviously the most significant, it has clearly been necessary to
escalate the complaint through all the stages to find out the extent of official error which has so
far been uncovered.

If it could be quantified in monetary terms, the cost (including potential loss of earnings) if
aggregated over the years for the gross inconvenience of having to deal with the maladministration
would amount to thousands of pounds. Though for someone in my financial situation the
consolotory payment of £350 was not insignificant, it only represented around 1 per cent of an
amount that would realistically compensate for the overall injustice.

On account of the lengths I have needed to go to in order to address these concerns, it is

reasonable to ask that I’m updated with any details of improvements or new policies which are put
into place as a consequence of highlighting the negligence and error.

Ideally a role would be created so that every JCP branch has an accountable person to ensure
matters like these are never allowed to remain unresolved indefinitely. That person would be
responsible for ensuring victims affected are not left spending disproportionate amounts of their
life battling to no end. If such a role does in fact exist within the DWP, then that person in respect
of the GJC should be held accountable and appropriate action taken against him/her.

In order that the Government is seen to be serious about reforming mismanagement in the DWP, it
would be appropriate for parliament to consider enacting new or amending existing legislation so
that matters as serious as these are punishable by fine or custodial sentence. Where an individual
faces the prospects of being given a criminal record and consequently having this go against them
when seeking other employment, the introduction of such a remedy would likely be an effective
deterrent against improper conduct.

The threat of a criminal record could also be what is needed for a would-be offender to think twice
about using their public office for an improper purpose and that it is unacceptable and
disproportionate to subject those concerned to such gross injustice and inconvenience for the
relatively small matter of losing face by admitting and remedying errors. It would also focus minds
that to cause someone gross injustice is an unacceptable trade off for covering up mismanagement
just to avoid, for example, an upheld complaint that might adversely affect performance targets
etc.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Concern about the ICE making no recommendations has been raised previously. Neglecting to is
essentially a missed opportunity to potentially lessen the ordeal of future victims of the system. It
was suggested a safety measure being recommended that would ensure after a set period of time
any matter which had not been resolved would be alerted to someone assigned responsibility to
intervene.

Another which would address the serious affects that official error has on a ‘customer’ and the
impact on the department’s resources would be to provide training to all relevant employees to
appropriately deal with injustice in accordance with the guidance.

We may recommend that organisations explain and apologise, change their procedure
and, if appropriate, pay some compensation. Please use this space to explain what you
want to happen as a result of your complaint. Note: if we do not think that we can
achieve what you want, we will let you know.
 Page 1 of 2

From: " "< . @btopenworld.com>

To: "Glaves John JCP GRIMSBY BRIDGE HOUSE" <JOHN.GLAVES@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK>
Sent: 28 March 2013 10:45
Subject: Re: Appointment.

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm I will be attending Bridge House on the 9th, unless any unforeseen circumstances prevent this.

Regards

----- Original Message -----

From: Glaves John JCP GRIMSBY BRIDGE HOUSE
To: . @btopenworld.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:26 PM
Subject: Appointment.

Mr ,

Following our conversation of yesterday, could you please attend Bridge House
Jobcentreplus, 225 Victoria Street, Grimsby on Tuesday 9th April 2013 at 16:00 for an
appointment with Mrs M. McGeever.

Yours Faithfully,

John Glaves

25+ Personal Adviser | Department for Work and Pensions | Grimsby Jobcentre Plus |
Bridge House, 225 Victoria Street| Grimsby | N.E.Lincolnshire |DN31 1NH | 01472 622239

www.dwp.gov.uk
Please consider the environment before printing

**********************************************************************

This document is strictly confidential and is intended only for use by the addressee.

If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other action taken in
reliance of the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

Any views expressed by the sender of this message are not necessarily those of the Department for
Work and Pensions.

If you have received this transmission in error, please use the reply function to tell us and then
permanently delete what you have received.

This email was scanned for viruses by the Department for Work and

08/05/2017
 NE21, .•.•..
.,
...
25.01.2013 ***********URGENT PLEASE SEE KARENS NOTE AND ISS JSA4
RR*******", ...*
28.01.2013 AS+Reception T/L - Accessed to check team cust belongs to.
Referred wp10 to PETL.
28.01.2013 29.1.13- PLEASE ISSUE APPOINTMENT LETTER FOR 31.1.13. wp10 TO BE
FOLLOW UP.
28.01.2013 *** ONA -please issue overtime letter and obtain signiture ***
29.01.2013 appt for saturday not appropriate credits only claim and already
seen by compliance last month, ASE action explained letter
issued.
12.02.2013BHC posted
12.02.2013 JSA4 RR TAM 30/1 ISS'D. DOES NOT GO TO PROVIDER, NOT WILLING TO
DISCUSS AGAIN WHY BUT CLAIM IS NI CREDITS ONLY.
26.02.2013 BHC returned.
clt had query over NI deficient yrs / suggested he
contacts HMRC. Asked to speak to manager / he spoke to Richard
who gave him tel number for HMRC Newcastle.
28.02.2013 **Important** cust has not returned JSA4RR issued on 12/02/13.
please do not sign until form completed as no claim.
07.03.2013 wp10 LOGGED AND REFD TO PETL
08.03.2013 19.3.13- please refer to advfser for wp10 action- customer has
failed to attend 42 welcome meetings with provider-
ASE!Availability doubt ????
12.03.2013 Nil has no live claim as hasnt returned a JSA4RR - refuses to do
so. Stated that he would come into sign every fortnight even
thoug~ no live claim. IS credits only. Explained that would

20.02.2014 11:42:43 page 7

CUSTOMER DATA PROTECTION ACT PRINT

Conversations

normally get a cust in every day until a number provided - he

stated he has email.
21.03.2013 LED 29.01.13 CLOSED AS PER REQUEST FROM 25+ TEAM.Wp07B SENT AND
LMU WITH J GLAVES
21.03.2013 ADV - Claim Closed as defective claim following disallowance
period. Cust refuses to complete JSA4(RR), see prev conv. DLJA100
posted to notify cust of decision.
26.03.2013 ADV - cust attended to discuss reasons for termination of JSA
following ASE. Any further enquiries please pass to either myself
or Maggie M.
26.03.2013 ***********IF CUSTOMER ATTENDS SEE LMU ON ALISON H DESK. MAGGIE
MCGEEVER ALSO KNOWS ABOUT THIS CASE **********
09.04.2013 ADV - cust attended to discuss ASE and Credits awards. Seen by
Maggie McGeever. Cust issued wit~ SAR details. Offered GL24 but
cust stated already has some copies. Advised again that he needs
to submit claim to JSA if he wishes to continue with JSA claim
following ASE disallowance. JSA conditionality reiterated.
23.04.2013 GL24 RECEIVED.
16.08.2013 Lms accessed on behalf of Mggie Mcgeever re claimant enq re ase
disd.
30.08.2013 accessed on behalf of Maggie McGeever as she is dealing with
correspoondence from cust
12.12.2013 6 APPEALS AT NEWCASTLE DRT ALL LAPSED AND SANCTIONS/DISALLOWANCES
REMOVED--CUST IS NOT BEING PAID JSA SO DM SHOULD ONLY BE MAKING
OPINION DECISIONS,
18.02.2014 IDOC 18/02/2014
JSA Non Claimant, Issue JSA Nc1

18.02.2014 IDOC: 18/02/2014 WFI Booked

Customer has been verbally informed
that WFI is at GRIMSBY JCP ON THE 20/02 @ 13:55. Claimant advised
of evidence and ID requirements.

page 7
 H,M
&nals HM Courts & Tribunals Service
Service Social Security & Child Support Appeals
York House '
31 York Place
LEEDS. LS1 2ED ..
Phon~:03001231142
Fax:. 0113-389-6001
http://wWw.tribu nals.gov. ukl
The appeals section
Hull BDC
Oriel House
49 High Street
Hull
HU11QL

National Insurance number: NE:L I •••• ""...-...---

Reference number: SC993113101435
Date: 19106/2013

About the JOB SEEKERS ALLOWANCE appeal·for Mr. 1~~ •.....caC

.' received an appeal on 29/05/2013 which you submitted because it was not duly made.

It has been confirmed that the appeal is not duly made. This means I will take no further action.
The appeal is closed.

Sharif Loonat
Clerk to the Tribunal

I ROYAL MAIL Sl·:::-:;!t.LD

2 4.06 1 3 (\ (Hl(ill 2 .

MAIL OPENING UNIT

GAPS 761/97 Ver. 6037 Appeals Officer

 / HMCourts
& Tribunals
Service
HM Courts & Tribunals Service
Social Security & Child Support Appeals
York House
31 York Place
LEEDS. LS1 2ED
Phone: 0300 123 1142
Fax: 0113-389-6001
http://www.tribu nals.gov. u kI
Mr. ~

(
l
[

National Insurance number: NE"' ••.•.• 1fO~ __

Reference number: SC993113/01435

Date: 19/06/2013

Dear Mr. (" ...

About your JOB SEEKERS ALLOWANCE appeal

I received a letter on 29/05/2013 saying that you want to appeal.

I can only deal with your appeal if the letter:

* is signed by you; or

is signed by ·somebody you have authorised to help you with your appeal

and

* tells me which decision you are appealing against; and

* gives the reasons why you think the decision is wrong.

I cannot deal with your appeal because your letter does not have all of this information. This means
I will take no further action. Your appeal is closed.

If you need to contact me, please quote your national insurance number which is at the top of this
letter.

Yours sincerely

Sharif Loonat
Clerk to the Tribunal

GAPS 761197 Ver. 6035 Appellant

.~_.~-_._--- -----------------------------------
 Page 1 of 1

From: " "< . @btopenworld.com>

To: <enquiries@dwp.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 11 July 2013 16:20
Subject: Fw: Valid email address

----- Original Message -----

From:
To: enquiries@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 12:29 PM
Subject: Fw: Valid email address

----- Original Message -----

From:
To: enquiries@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 10:08 AM
Subject: Fw: Valid email address

Is this a valid email address?

----- Original Message -----

From:
To: enquiries@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 2:30 PM
Subject: Valid email address

Dear Sir/Madam

Is this a valid email address please:

hullbdc.appealsteam@dwp.gsi.gov.uk

Also, is there a Ms Metcalf employed at the following address, and if so is she known for ignoring important
correspondence?

HULL BC
Job Centre Plus Brightside Lane
Sheffield
S399 3AE

Yours sincerely

13/05/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: " "< . @btopenworld.com>

To: "Gregory Nick JCP 25+ TEAM" <NICK.GREGORY@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK>
Sent: 23 January 2014 16:23
Attach: Social Entitlement Tribunal - All Decisions.pdf; Social Entitlement Tribunal - Grounds of
appeal.pdf
Subject: DWP Complaint - Tribunal Appeal Ref: SC993/13/01435

Dear Mr Gregory

Further to our conversation this morning please find attached the two pdf documents discussed.

I hold a bundle of documents recording events of the Tribunal which consists of around 80 pages. The
contents include Direction Notices, (striking out, reinstating the appeal etc. etc.), associated emails and
letters. I'm prepared to scan these (with other relevant correspondence) and compile into a single pdf
document to support the amount of time which has been dedicated to the appeal. You might of course hold
these already or may easily obtain them from the administrative office. Please let me know if you require this
doing.

Your sincerely

08/05/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: "Gregory Nick JCP 25+ TEAM" <NICK.GREGORY@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK>

To: " "< . @btopenworld.com>
Sent: 23 January 2014 17:50
Subject: RE: DWP Complaint - Tribunal Appeal Ref: SC993/13/01435

Dear Mr ,

thank you for telephoning me earlier today and for sending me these details. I have now
forwarded these documents to the Special Payments Team in Glasgow, who will find them
helpful.

I said that I would ensure that your national Insurance Credits were brought up to date by
Hull Benefit Centre, following your appeal. After our conversation, I spoke to Newcastle
Resolution Team who had details of your Appeal and arranged with them that details of
these periods would be sent to Hull Benefit Centre, with instructions to update your records.
They have forwarded this information to the
Benefit Centre this afternoon. I shall contact them personally next week, to ensure that this
has been actioned and your records updated.

At the moment, I don't think there is any need to scan anymore of your documents. If the
Special Payments Team in Glasgow require these, they will contact you direct and ask you
for them.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Gregory
25+ Advisor Manager | Department for Works and Pensions | Work Services Directorate |
North East Yorkshire & Humber | Grimsby Bridge House | Grimsby | DN31 1NH |
www.dwp.gov.uk Please consider the environment before printing
_____________________________________________________________
From: ” ” [mailto: . @btopenworld.com]
Sent: 23 January 2014 15:24
To: Gregory Nick JCP 25+ TEAM
Subject: DWP Complaint - Tribunal Appeal Ref: SC993/13/01435

Dear Mr Gregory

Further to our conversation this morning please find attached the two pdf documents discussed.

I hold a bundle of documents recording events of the Tribunal which consists of around 80 pages. The
contents include Direction Notices, (striking out, reinstating the appeal etc. etc.), associated emails
and letters. I'm prepared to scan these (with other relevant correspondence) and compile into a single
pdf document to support the amount of time which has been dedicated to the appeal. You might of
course hold these already or may easily obtain them from the administrative office. Please let me
know if you require this doing.

Your sincerely

**********************************************************************

This document is strictly confidential and is intended only for use by the addressee.

08/05/2017
 Page 1 of 2

From: " "< . @gmail.com>

To: <ice@dwp.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 13 March 2017 09:02
Subject: Fw: FAO Sally Nicholls - Ref: DWP01032/15

Dear Ms Nicholls

I would like to add that I mistakenly stated the wrong date in my email of 11 March 2017, see corrected
paragraph below:

I strongly contend the part of the complaint which was not upheld, i.e., the failure to provide the entire
appeal form to HMCTS. I fail to see how the Case Examiner views that there is no evidence (only my
belief) when first Hull BDC (7 May 2013) then the Tribunal (19 June) sent letters saying that they could
not deal with the appeal unless the form was signed.

I must also clarify that of course I realise that the completed form (GL24) was eventually obtained by Hull BDC
and subsequently HMCTS, but that was unlikely to have been until after 1 July 2013 when it was obvious in
my email to HMCTS that a question arose about there not being a place for a signature on the form.

I have also found records of emails/ meetings which the DWP/Jobcentre claim there are no records of (the
meeting of 9 April 2013 for example). I have still to check the remainder of the complaints findings for other
similar claims (no records etc.)

Yours sincerely

----- Original Message -----

From: . @gmail.com
To: ice@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 9:52 PM
Subject: Fw: FAO Sally Nicholls - Ref: DWP01032/15

Dear Ms Nicholls

Thank you for your letter of 2 March 2017 in response to my below email.

I have also today received the outcome to my complaint from Joanna Wallace (Independent Case Examiner)
dated 9 March 2017.

Although I consider the majority of my concerns have been thoroughly investigated there remains some parts
of the complaint I wish to make representations on. It would speed things up for me if I could have
the complaint findings sent to me in an electronic format. This would assist, if as it is looking likely, I need to
forward it to my MP for referral to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. You will appreciate that scanning on home
equipment is time consuming and the quality deteriorates.

I am unsure whether it would be worth asking the Case Examiner to review her decision as I have no new
evidence (assuming all papers were considered) and the points I wish to contest would probably be
considered a difference of opinion.

I strongly contend the part of the complaint which was not upheld, i.e., the failure to provide the entire appeal
form to HMCTS. I fail to see how the Case Examiner views that there is no evidence (only my belief) when
first Hull BDC (7 May 2013) then the Tribunal (19 May) sent letters saying that they could not deal with the
appeal unless the form was signed.

The form had been signed which suggests that there was a failure to provide the entire completed appeal
form. To reinforce this, the letter (I have the original) sent from HMCTS dated 6 June 2013 included a copy of

09/05/2017
 Page 2 of 2

the appeal form but the page which included my signature was missing (page two). In place of the missing
page was a duplicate of the first page (arising presumably from a copying error) which provides the solution
for why both Hull BDC then the Tribunal questioned that the form was not signed. This is therefore not just my
belief but evidence to support that the entire GL24 form was not forwarded to Hull BDC and in turn why the
entire form was not referred to HMCTS.

Another point which was hardly addressed surrounded the consolatory payment. I have acknowledged that
any consolatory payment which might be deemed appropriate, would unlikely go a fraction of the way to
compensate the hundreds of hours spent engaged in the dispute. However, I would have expected that the
representations I submitted in the 26 August 2014 complaint and subsequently in my letter of 22 December
2015 complaint (Complaints, Redress and Stewardship Team) would have been more closely considered. I
question how the opinion has been arrived at that the consolatory payment awarded amounting to £400 to be
appropriate redress given the circumstances of my case, taking into account that a significant amount of time
was expended dealing with appealing the original decision to refuse a payment.

I genuinely consider a more realistic sum of compensation would be in the region of a hundred times the
awarded amount.

There may be other aspects of the complaint that I wish to raise with the Parliamentary Ombudsman but will
need to go through the findings again. However, going on what I have set out above I would appreciate being
informed whether there is likely to be anything achieved by asking the Case Examiner to review her decision.
If not it would save time and effort if I directly contacted my MP on this matter.

Yours sincerely

----- Original Message -----

From: . @gmail.com
To: ice@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 8:55 PM
Subject: FAO Sally Nicholls - Ref: DWP01032/15

Dear Ms Nicholls

ICE Ref No: DWP01032/15

I am writing with regards your correspondence dated 16 December 2016 and the undertaking to update me in
eight weeks on the progress of your investigation. I have not received anything further.

Yours sincerely

09/05/2017
 Page 1 of 1

From: " "< . @btopenworld.com>

To: <hullbdc.appealsteam@dwp.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent: 22 May 2013 15:09
Attach: Appeal decision 2 May 2013.pdf
Subject: NE 25D / 312050

Dear Ms Metcalf

I will write in more detail, but for now please find attached the letter I'm waiting on in relation to my appeal.

Yours sincerely

13/05/2017
Bridge House
225 Victoria Street Grimsby
Grimsby North East Lincolnshire
North East Lincolnshire DN 0
DN31 1NH
Ref: NE 25D

2 May 2013

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Subject Access Request

In order that I may progress an appeal against a decision to end a claim for Jobseeker’s allowance,
please accept this as my permission for the DWP to access my personal data under the provisions of
section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

I would like all details held regarding referral of my claim to a Decision Maker.

Specifically these details would include:

• Date(s) of interview(s) with the/any Grimsby Jobcentre plus employee having cause to forward
such details to a DMA
• Reason for referral
• Transcript or recording of conversation between myself and interviewer(s)
• If any other reason for referral please state and give details
• The Decision Maker’s reason for ending the claim

It has come to light recently that sanctions/ disallowances have been the cause of missing National
Insurance contributions in the years 2010-11 and 2011-12. For each year, 5 credits are short, therefore
reducing my qualifying pension entitlement by two years. Adding this to the recent action of 2013 means
there are three years pension entitlement lost in total.

Consequently I would like the same information as detailed above which led to both
sanctions/disallowances in the years 2010-11 and 2011-12.

Yours sincerely

.
HULL BC
Job Centre Plus Grimsby
Brightside Lane North East Lincolnshire
Sheffield DN 0
S399 3AE
Ref: NE 25D / 312050

23 May 2013

Dear Ms Metcalf

Re: About Appeal

Thank you for your letter of 7 May 2013 in regards my appeal.

I’m sorry I can’t give any further details as yet. I explained on the application that I needed details which I
have been informed today, could be several weeks coming. This is because I’ve needed to submit a
Subject Access Request under the provision of the Data Protection Act.

Please find attached all correspondence entered into in this regard for your reference.

Yours sincerely