Emails

Emails
#1
From:
To: Mcgeever Maggie JCP 25+ TEAM
Cc: Hurrell Stephen JCP GRIMSBY BRIDGE HOUSE ; Glaves John JCP GRIMSBY BRIDGE HOUSE ;
Barker Robert JCP JSA CHANGES ; Little Richard JCP GRIMSBY BRIDGE HOUSE ;
tony.mountain@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Appeal SC993/13/01435
Dear Ms McGeever
I have received correspondence from HM Courts & Tribunals Service dated 20 December 2013 notifying
me that the Department of Work and Pensions have revised their decisions in my favour.
Copies of all six decisions have been sent. I have reproduced a sample below:
We have looked again at the decision dated 29/07/2010.
The new decision is that the jobseeker is not disentitled or sanctioned.
The law used to make this decision

Social Security Act 1998 sec 9
________________________________________________________________
DATE OF TRANSGRESSION ASSUMED TO BE 07/07/2010
The decision dated 29/07/2010 is erroneous in Law and is revised.
Section 19 (1) of the Jobseekers Act 1995 prescribes the circumstances in which Jobseekers
Allowance is not payable. It does not mention imposing sanctions on national insurance credits.
Mr was not being paid Jobseekers Allowance and has not in fact been awarded payment
since 2009. In these circumstances it was incorrect in Law to apply the sanction/disallowance.
In many respects the DM should only have made an ‘opinion’ decision on this question rather than
a formal decision. It is noted that there is no provision in Law for ‘opinion’ decisions to attract rights
of appeal.
Overall the sanction/disallowance covering the period 07/07/2010 to 13/08/2010 is lifted.
It should be noted that papers relating to this decision are not held in storage and as such the
outcome cannot be supported
For all intents and purpose, the decisions are the same, so it would seem that in each case the actions
were unlawful, therefore I should not have been sanctioned or disentitled to National Insurance Credits.
In light of the recent decision I am now keen to have confirmation that all missing NI credits are re-
credited and a revised pension statement issuing to reflect the increased number of qualifying years.
Secondly, my position now stands that due to being unlawfully sanctioned, I have not been a registered
claimant for several months. Consequently, the number of further missing National Insurance credits are
potentially cause for another appeal. It would therefore seem sensible that the situation is
remedied without further need to involve lengthy appeal proceedings. The matter also arises as to when
and how the claim will resume.
Lastly, I would also like informing of my options in regards claiming compensation for the numerous
unnecessary inconveniences suffered due to unlawful actions, the countless hours needed to research the
appeal process, sourcing and preparing evidence to make it possible to produce the relevant papers for
submission to the appeal.
Your sincerely
#2
From: Mcgeever Maggie JCP 25+ TEAM
To: ' '
Cc: Little Richard JCP GRIMSBY BRIDGE HOUSE
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 4:11 PM
Subject: RE: Appeal SC993/13/01435
Dear Mr
Thank you for your email of 6th January regarding the appeal outcome on the decision
made 29/07/2010.
Firstly may I apologise for the delay in responding to your email, I have been absent from
the office until today.
I no longer work on the team which deals with your case but I have passed on your
messages and ensured that action is being taken to oversee your request by the new
team manager.
Mr Little has contacted the Benefit Delivery Centre who will be contacting you in due
course.
Yours sincerely
Maggie McGeever
Advisor Team Manager | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Services Directorate
| North East Yorkshire & Humber | Grimsby Bridge House Jobcentre Plus | Tel. 01472
622233
#3
From: Gregory Nick JCP 25+ TEAM
To: . @btopenworld.com
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 5:01 PM
Subject: Your recent Appeal
Dear Mr ,
Thank you for your email of 6th January regarding your appeal outcome on the decision
dated 29/07/2010.
Thank you for informing me of the revised decisions relating to your Appeal Tribunal. I
have contacted my colleagues in the Benefit Centre who award credits and they have
confirmed that when they receive copies of these decisions from the Appeal Tribunal,
credits will be awarded to you for the appropriate periods.
Your previous claim to Jobseekers Allowance ended on 29/1/13,therefore if you would

like to reclaim Jobseekers Allowance, you would need to either claim on-line at
www.direct.gov.uk/benefits or contact 0800 055 6688. When you make contact, you can
ask for your claim to be backdated to an earlier date.
If you want to request a further pension forecast after your credits have been updated,
you can do so on line by visiting https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-statement.
A special payment may be considered under certain circumstances, if an individual has

incurred additional costs or losses as a direct result of maladministration. If a payment is
to be considered, these are calculated by looking at how much a person has
demonstrably lost or what extra costs they have reasonably incurred. Evidence would
need to be provided of the costs that you had incurred. If you feel that this is applicable
to you, please forward details to me of the costs you have incurred, along with the
accompanying evidence.
I hope that this deals with your queries satisfactorily. If you have any further questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me at this address.
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
#4
From:
To: Gregory Nick JCP 25+ TEAM
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: Your recent Appeal
Dear Mr Gregory
Thank you for your 10th January 2014 email in answer to my queries.
In regards the link provided to obtain a pension forecast, I have attempted and had no success in obtaining
a current statement by accessing that site. An error message is returned each time the required details are
entered into the required fields. My current statement (with amended credits) and the corresponding
number of years pension entitlement this qualifies, will determine if there is any point reclaiming
Jobseeker's Allowance so will need further confirmation before making a claim.
I also need further detail about the kind of expenditure that would be taken into account when assessing
the loss due to the maladministration. In my case the loss comprises 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 of costs 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.
This too will take several hours to produce, consequently if the DWP consider these are not allowable
costs then I'd prefer having this clarified before spending further time working on this.
Your sincerely
#5
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:08 PM
Subject: RE: Your recent Appeal
Dear Mr ,
thank you for your prompt reply to my e-mail.
I am sorry that the link to the Pension Forecast is not working for you at the moment. I
shall have to investigate this further to find out how individuals can gain a forecast on
their Pension, by other means. Once I have found a better alternative to suggest, I shall
contact you again with the details.
With regards to Special Payments, the type of costs that this covers is usually postal and
telephony costs, incurred in chasing up a claim or query. It would be helpful if you could
forward the relevant Telephony statements covering this period to me, with the calls
relating to your query highlighted. I appreciate that it is unlikely that you will have receipts
of any postal costs, so if you could simply let me know how much you have spent in this
area, with relation to chasing up your query with the Department. If you have printed off
documents in relation to your Appeal, then you could have incurred additional printing
costs, so if this is the case, can you let me know how many copies you have printed and
at what cost to yourself. If you have incurred any other expenses that you would not
otherwise have had, can you please let me know what these are as well, providing
evidence wherever possible. Once you have got all this information collected together,
please forward it to me at :
Grimsby Jobcentre
Mail Handling Site A
Wolverhampton
WV98 1GN
If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me at this address.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Gregory
#6
From: [mailto: . @btopenworld.com]
Sent: 14 January 2014 14:47
Dear Mr Gregory
I have provisionally looked at the amount of work needed to document all evidence to asses incurred
costs. I'm certain that this will add several hours to the time already taken with these issues. Therefore, I
need to know before beginning work on an assessment whether my time will be considered as costs
incurred and compensated in the form of a "special payment". I need written confirmation that my time
(including that for providing evidence) will not be disallowed.
Regarding the items you have suggested (postage, printer costs, paper etc.), these will be insignificant in
comparison to my time which was the only costs I had intended to quantify.
Yours sincerely,
P.S. Will you please forward me contact details for the person who has overall responsibility for managing
Grimsby Job Centre.
#7
To:
Dear Mr ,
thank you for your reply to my e-mail. In one of my earlier e-mails, I did say that I
would update you on your query over your Pension forecast. If you telephone the
State Pension Enquiry line on 0845.3000.168, you will be given the option of
speaking to a member of staff or requesting a Pension forecast form to complete.
It would be helpful if you could have your National Insurance number ready, in
advance of your call.
With regards to any potential claim for a Special Payment, this is for costs
incurred, such as those listed-postal, telephony, paper etc, rather than for your
time spent. I am afraid that your time is not considered as a cost for these
purposes. If you have incurred expenses that you would like to claim for, such as
postal, telephony, paper can you please forward details to me at Grimsby Bridge
House.
The contact details for the Manager of Grimsby Bridge House are
steve.johnston@dwp.gsi.gov.uk.
If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me at this
address.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Gregory
#8
To: Gregory Nick JCP 25+ TEAM; Johnston Steve JCP CSD
Subject: Fw: Your recent Appeal
Dear Mr Gregory
I'd like to know on whose authority you have stated that the DWP do not consider the 10s of hours that the
unlawful actions of Grimsby Job Centre has caused me are not considered as costs which may be claimed
as compensation?
Please also tell me of my what options are available to me to take further action over this.
Yours sincerely
.
#9
To:
Dear Mr ,
thank you for your e-mail in connection with your recent application for compensation.
The decision that Special Payments are for additional costs incurred or losses as a direct
result of maladministration, is based on DWP National guidance on Special Payments.
After discussing the circumstances of your application with the DWP National Team for
Special Payments, your application has been forwarded to the National Special Payment
Team, who are based at Glasgow Northgate Benefit Centre.
Responsibility for you and your request for compensation will remain with Grimsby
Bridge House, though the actual decision on whether a Special Payment is payable will
be taken by the Special Payments Team in Glasgow. When they have made a decision
on your request, the Special Payments Team will contact you direct.
If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me at this
address.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Gregory
#10
From:
To: steve.johnston@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: Gregory Nick JCP 25+ TEAM
Subject: Tribunal Appeal Ref: SC993/13/01435
Dear Mr Johnson
Re: Tribunal Appeal Ref: SC993/13/01435
I copied you in an email (16 January 2014 ) sent to Mr Gregory who is dealing with matters relating
to my appeal.
A limited amount of background information is contained within the correspondence history which
presumably you have read.
I will be bringing a complaint and intend to raise concerns about the way matters are dealt with at Grimsby
Jobcentre, specifically in regards fabricating evidence for the purpose of sanctioning/ disallowing claims for
national insurance credits. Staff at Grimsby Jobcentre have regularly failed to respond to correspondence
concerning the appeal, failing too to comply with the law surrounding Data Protection Act, the apparent
culture to instinctively lie to customers is also of concern.
These issues have highlighted serious failings within the organisation, and would appear to me that staff
are pressured into resorting to illegal actions for the purpose of hitting targets, and would suspect it is
required of them to be uncooperative with members of the public (fob them off) with the intention of
preventing complaints escalating to any level which would make it uncomfortable for management. I
suspect the issues relating to my appeal (almost a year in duration) were not known to you up until 16
January?
I would therefore be interested in your comments and details of any policy concerning complaints of the
nature I intend to bring about the Grimsby branch of Jobcentre plus.
Yours sincerely
#11
Cc: Johnston Steve JCP CSD
Dear Mr Gregory
Can you please confirm that the Special Payments Team at Glasgow will be making a preliminary decision
with regards to whether they will pay compensation in respect of my time, or if they first require evidence
on which to make their decision?
As you may recall I have stated that to prepare a document for presentation as evidence will take several
hours. I would like this clarifying before I spend any more time on these issues.
Can you also supply a contact for whoever will be dealing with this matter at Glasgow. I ask because the
last time I was informed by Grimsby Jobcentre that I would be contacted directly (Subject Access
Request), there was around a four month wait.
Yours sincerely
.
#12
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:53 PM
Dear Mr ,
thank you for your recent e-mail. I can confirm that the Special Payments Team will
make the decision on whether a Special Payment is going to be paid to you. If they
require any further evidence, then they will contact you direct and ask for this.
The Special Payments Team deal with any cases in date order, with an anticipated
turnaround time of 15 working days.
If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me

at this address.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Gregory
#13
From: Johnston Steve JCP CSD
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:29 PM
Subject: DWP Complaint
Dear Mr. ,
Thank you for your email of the 20 January. DWP and Jobcentre Plus operate an open
and transparent complaints policy and we always try and resolve matters in discussion,
wherever possible. If in the first instance you would like to discuss your complaint, can I
ask that you contact Mr. Nick Gregory on 622331, who will be happy to arrange a
meeting to discuss all aspects of your complaint.
If however you consider that you would rather raise a more formal complaint, or you are
unhappy with the responses you have received to date, then I can arrange to escalate
matters to a Complaint Resolution Manager (CRM), who is independent from Grimsby
Jobcentre. If you decide on this option, you should clearly explain what has happened,
how this has affected you and what you want to happen to put things right. In this
respect, it would be helpful to provide specific examples to substantiate your complaint.
If you remain unhappy with the response from our CRM you will be asked if you want
your complaint to be sent to the Director General of Jobcentre Plus Operations. If you're
still unhappy after this, you can ask the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) to investigate
your case. Finally, if you're unhappy with the response from ICE you can discuss matters
with your MP, or ask that your case is sent to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsmen.
I hope my reply helps you decide how you wish to progress your complaint and should
you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact myself or Mr.
Gregory.
Yours sincerely,
Steve Johnston
Jobcentre Manager | Department for Work and Pensions | Grimsby Bridge House
Jobcentre, Grimsby DN31 1NH Phone 01472 622313 | Internal | 2313 | Mob:
07920783309
#14
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
#15
To:
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
#16
From:
To: sally.walls@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 4:38 PM
Subject: Special Payment request
Dear Ms Walls
Re: 7068E
Please will you let me know what information has been submitted by Grimsby Jobcentre in relation to the
Special Payment request (the subject of your letter to me dated 23 January 2013). It appear from the
contents that you are not aware of the gross inconvenience these unlawful decisions have caused me, nor
of the length of time the dispute has been ongoing.
Your sincerely
Note:
Resent on 30.1.14, and again on 3.2.14 adding a request to acknowledge correspondence and
forward contact details of the person with overall responsibility for the Special Payments Unit.
#17
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 11:14 AM
Subject: DWP Complaint - Tribunal Appeal Ref: SC993/13/01435
Dear Mr ,
further to my earlier e-mail, I said that I would contact my colleagues in Hull Benefit
Centre and ensure that they had received details of the periods you needed to have your
National Insurance Credits adjusted.
I have now been able to confirm that Hull Benefit Centre have received details of your
Appeal and that your records have been adjusted to take account of this. The net result
of this adjustment is that for the 2010/11 Tax Year, you now have 52 credits awarded
and for the 2011/12 Tax Year, you have also been awarded 52 credits. For the 2012/13
Tax Year, you have now been awarded 39 credits, following your Appeal.
If you apply for an updated Pension Forecast (40 days after your last request), this will
now show the above changes.
I hope that this answers your initial query satisfactorily. If you have any further questions,
please contact me at this address.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Gregory
#18
From: Walls Sally JCP GLASGOW BENEFIT CENTRE
To: ' '
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:18 AM
Subject: RE: Special Payment request
Dear Mr
I have already spoken to Nr Nick Gregory from North East Yorkshire and Humber,
Grimsby on Friday 31/01/14 about your email to me and I would recommend that you
contact him directly.
I am unable to personally send you the information you have requested because this
request has to be handled by the sending office which in your case is Grimsby.
I can only acknowledge your email in very general terms and its advisable to make any
further requests in writing.
Sally Walls |Special Payments Decision Maker | Department for Work and Pensions I
Glasgow Northgate Benefit Centre | Floor 1 |Bay 165 |96 Milton Street |Glasgow |G4
0DX | 0141 3548780| Internal 68780| Fax Number 0141 354 8676 | Text box 0845 608
8753 | www.dwp.gov.uk | Please consider the environment before printing
#19
From:
To: Walls Sally JCP GLASGOW BENEFIT CENTRE
Cc: Gregory Nick JCP 25+ TEAM ; Johnston Steve JCP CSD
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: Special Payment request
Dear Ms Walls
These particular issues surround the Special Payment Unit, and as such is the department with which I'm
making my enquiries. Your letter dated 23 January 2014 clearly results from the department's policy to fob-
off members of the public which has been introduced by some faceless bureaucrat.
I am in [no] doubt whatsoever that orders come from the top to be obstructive, lie, deceit and fob-off
members of the public making enquiries and who want to dig deeper into the incompetence and
negligence which is endemic within organisations such as the DWP.
I'm determined to get to the source of the criminality (those who are hiding behind people like you) and a
good start, in this case, will be to get at the person with overall responsibility for the Special Payments
Unit.
I therefore ask again who that person is.
Yours sincerely
#20
From: Walls Sally JCP GLASGOW BENEFIT CENTRE
To: ' '
Cc: Gregory Nick JCP 25+ TEAM ; Johnston Steve JCP CSD
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 4:55 PM
Subject: RE: Special Payment request
Dear Mr
Thank you very much for your email.
I will be in touch in due course.
Sally Walls
#21
From:
To: william.murphy@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK ; Walls Sally JCP GLASGOW BENEFIT CENTRE
Cc: Johnston Steve JCP CSD ; Gregory Nick JCP 25+ TEAM
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 2:44 PM
Subject: SP Ref No: 7068E (Grimsby Jobcentre)
Dear Mr Murphy
I have been informed by a member of your Team that you are head of the Special Payment Unit
(Glasgow). From my experience of dealing with DWP employees, especially at the Grimsby Jobcentre, I
can only assume you are and cannot necessarily be assured.
I have issues which are (or perhaps not) being dealt with by a member of your Team, who appears to be
carrying out your dirty work, entailing obstructing progress, deliberately fobbing-off my enquiries and
causing the maximum amount of inconvenience.
The most recent letter form your Special Payments Team is dated Feb 6, 2014 (SP Ref No: 7068E) which
indicates that no headway has been made in addressing the concerns I've raised. The letter is no more
than a chronology of events which I am more than aware of already. No progress is being made and as I
suspect, there is a policy for all DWP staff to deal with matters this way; incidentally, I consider there to be
serious consequences for those responsible for implementing them.
Although as aforementioned, the letter is merely a chronology of events, it is evident that the "additional
information" sent by Mr Gregory to the SP Unit did not include the Grounds of Appeal which I assumed
would accompany the appeal court decisions of 12/12/13. I assumed this because we had discussed this
prior to him sending them to the Unit.
There also seems to be a failure to acknowledge that the unlawful decisions were in total six – not just the
one referred to in respect of the decision for the period 07/07/2010 to 13/08/2010.
It is clear the wilful negligence and obstruction is continuing even now from staff at the Grimsby Jobcentre.
The Manager at the Grimsby branch (Mr Johnston) has been made aware of the issues concerning
intransigence, but evidently no steps have been taken to remedy this.
Being the person with overall responsibility for the SP Unit, I would like some feedback from you to
suggest a way how these issues may be resolved without further delay.
Yours sincerely
Note:
Resent on 14.2.14, and again on 25 and 26 February 2014 with jason.feeney@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK as
additional recipient
#22
Sent: 14 February 2014 15:49
To: Johnston Steve JCP CSD
Cc: william.murphy@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK; Walls Sally JCP GLASGOW BENEFIT CENTRE; Gregory Nick JCP
25+ TEAM
Subject: DWP Complaint / Tribunal Appeal Ref: SC993/13/01435 / SP Ref No: 7068E (Grimsby Jobcentre)
Dear Mr Johnston
It is looking likely that I'm going to be taking these issues as far as possible, which if no satisfactory
outcome can be gained from the Complaint Resolution Manager, will be to escalate via my MP to the
Parliamentary Ombudsman, and ultimately judicial review.
I would like my complaint to focus on the obstruction met by jobcentre staff and for it to be investigated into
what lies behind it being possible for issues to remain unresolved for months, if not years.
It appears to me that the reasons why the public is lied to and treat like idiots is to make sure nothing is
admitted that will impact on the branch's performance and ultimately reflect badly on employees in
managerial roles. It is unacceptable that people are paying with months of their lives battling with
intransigent staff merely to protect a few people's reputations in high ranking positions.
It is clear from correspondence sent by the Special Payments Unit (SPU) that I was put at a disadvantage
by it being left to the jobcentre to convey the degree to which I had been inconvenience by these
circumstances. Many clues give it away that it was in the interest of the Grimsby jobcentre for the SPU to
consider there was no inconvenience caused that warranted compensation. To determine this would have
required some manipulation of the presented facts or at least an omission of the most relevant ones.
The most relevant evidence was the grounds of appeal to the Tribunal which appears not to have been
forwarded to the SPU. It should be noted that I had attached the document to an email sent to Nick
Gregory for this purpose. So it seems that at all costs, the department must make sure it is not seen to
have been doing anything wrong, which is the impression the jobcentre wanted to make, and succeeded in
doing with the SPU. It is exactly the causes of this destructive culture that I would like my complaint to
uncover. It would doubtlessly be beneficial for the majority of staff working in such an environment if there
was a transformation in the way business is carried out where it seems dishonesty plays a key role.
For it to be possible to present my complaint in the most effective way I would like that all records are
released in relation to, which staff, at the Grimsby branch knew, and at what stage were they aware about
the failures that have led to these issues continuing unresolved for almost a year.
If it's required that I submit a Subject Access Request for any of these details, please let me know.
Yours sincerely
.
#23
From: Johnston Steve JCP CSD
To: ' . @btopenworld.com'
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 10:49 AM
Subject: FW: DWP Complaint / Tribunal Appeal Ref: SC993/13/01435 / SP Ref No: 7068E (Grimsby
Jobcentre)
Dear Mr. ,
Thank you for your email and I am sorry you do not feel the issues you raise have been
satisfactorily resolved. I am assured that all of the documents relating to your appeal
were forwarded to Glasgow to consider your Special Payment request.
As I said in my earlier email, DWP operates a very transparent complaints policy and
given the concerns you raise, you may now wish to escalate your complaint. You can do
this either by contacting your local MP or the DWP Director General for Operations, PO
Box 50101, London SW1P 2WU.
Your email of 14 February has been treated as a SAR request and the DWP Data
Manager will provide the requested information in line with statutory timescales for
clearance of such requests.
Yours sincerely,
Mr. S. Johnston
#24
From:
To: Wood Philip DWP BENEFITS DIRECTOR SUPPORT
Cc: jason.feeney@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: Re: SP Ref No: 7068E (Grimsby Jobcentre)
Dear Mr Wood
I have a "Read Receipt" (see details below) in connection with an email not sent to you. I presume the
correspondence had been forwarded to you for your attention. Can you confirm this and whether the
concerns I've raised are being looked into.
I had intended sending the email to William Murphy, who I have been told is head of the Special Payment
Unit (Glasgow). However, I'm led to believe the address I used was incorrect
(william.murphy@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK). Could you therefore confirm one way or the other and if incorrect
please provide his current email address.
Yours sincerely
.
----- Original Message -----
From: Wood Philip DWP BENEFITS DIRECTOR SUPPORT
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:24 AM
Subject: Read: Re: SP Ref No: 7068E (Grimsby Jobcentre)
Your message
To: Wood Philip DWP BENEFITS DIRECTOR SUPPORT

Subject: Re: SP Ref No: 7068E (Grimsby Jobcentre)
Sent: 26 February 2014 10:23:03 (UTC) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London
was read on 26 February 2014 10:24:40 (UTC) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London.
#25
From:
To: Gregory Nick JCP 25+ TEAM ; Johnston Steve JCP CSD
Cc: Walls Sally JCP GLASGOW BENEFIT CENTRE ; Wood Philip DWP BENEFITS DIRECTOR
SUPPORT ; jason.feeney@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK ; Barker Robert JCP JSA CHANGES
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: DWP Complaint - Tribunal Appeal Ref: SC993/13/01435
Dear Mr Gregory/Johnston
Please find attached letter outlining a number of queries in connection with my National Insurance credits,
Subject Access Request, Tribunal and the Special Payment Unit.
I would appreciate if you would confirm whether the concerns raised will be looked into.
Yours sincerely
Note:
Resent on 20.3.14 and again on 21.3.14 adding a request to confirm whether the concerns raised
will be looked into to and explain why there has been no acknowledgement to previous requests
for confirmation. Other recipients copied in as witnesses to concerns surrounding intransigence.
#26
From:
To: Gregory Nick JCP 25+ TEAM ; Johnston Steve JCP CSD
Cc: Walls Sally JCP GLASGOW BENEFIT CENTRE ; Wood Philip DWP BENEFITS DIRECTOR
SUPPORT ; jason.feeney@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK ; Barker Robert JCP JSA CHANGES ;
tanya.gold@guardian.co.uk
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 1:44 PM
Dear Mr Gregory/Johnston
I have simply asked whether the concerns raised will be looked into. It would require negligible time and
effort to inform me one way or the other. I'm therefore at a loss as to why you haven't responded; unless
there is an ulterior motive for which I have several suggestions – one of the following must be close to the
real reason:
1) Realising how grossly negligent Grimsby Jobcentre has been you fear the
consequences if exposed and believe stonewalling me will make the problem go away,
consequences if exposed and believe taking this approach will provoke me sufficiently to put
something abusive in writing in order that you may claim my behaviour has been
unreasonable, thus diverting attention away from the department's gross negligence,
consequences if exposed and believe taking this approach will, for example, provoke me to make
personal threats in order that you may claim my behaviour has been unreasonable/criminal, thus
diverting attention away from the departments gross negligence.
Whatever your reason, the DWP are certainly living up to its reputation of being a dysfunctional, out-of-
control rogue government department. Grimsby Jobcentre managers evidently view it a priority that their
reputations are preserved at the expense of the public by covering up maladministration which results from
its target culture to sanction and serves the purpose of falsifying the unemployment figures.
Yours sincerely
#27
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 5:56 PM
Subject: FW: DWP Complaint - Tribunal Appeal Ref: SC993/13/01435

Sent: 25 March 2014 16:04
To: Johnston Steve JCP CSD
Subject: FW: DWP Complaint - Tribunal Appeal Ref: SC993/13/01435
Dear Mr ,
thank you for your e-mail of the 17 March 2014, may I offer my apologies for the delay in
replying to you, as I have been trying to find out some further information in connection
with your queries.
I am pleased to say that I have now obtained this information, so am in a position to
answer the queries you have raised.
Your claim has been backdated to the 29 August 2012, which means that you have been
awarded National Insurance credits for the period 29 August to 16 September 2012.This
means that for the 2012/13 year, you have been awarded a total of 49 credits which
have all been posted on the NIRS system.
With relation to the Special Payment request that you made, I can confirm that every
document that you forwarded to me, was sent to the Special Payment Unit in their
original format. The Special Payment Unit had all of your documents available, when
they made their decision.
To confirm your other National Insurance credits, you have 52 credits awarded for the
2010/11 Tax Year, then for the 2011/12 Tax Year, you also have 52 credits awarded.
I trust that this answers all of the queries you have raised satisfactorily. If you have any
further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at this address.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Gregory
#28
Sent: 26 March 2014 14:32
Cc: Johnston Steve JCP CSD; Walls Sally DWP GLASGOW SERVICE CENTRE
Dear Mr Gregory
Thank you for your further comments.
I am still trying to piece together what happened which is proving difficult owing to one of the Tribunal's
decision notices containing a typo.
To explain:
The fourth Tribunal decision notice relating to a decision dated 11/09/12 appears to have been copied and
pasted from text belonging the previous notice and not edited accordingly. I'm therefore now unsure as to
the period for which the sanction covered in relation to that decision date (11/09/12).
Further clarification:
Concerning my most recent claim made in February 2014, I requested it was backdated to 29 January
2013. I now assume it was successfully backdated to that date which accounts for the 10 additional
weeks allocated NI credits relating to 2012/13.
However, I can now not see from the information I have why there would be three weeks missing for
2012/13. This would probably mean that the weeks short (apparently 3) of the full 52 were as a
consequence of another sanction of which neither I nor the Tribunal was aware. I'm guessing there would
have been a sanction which was not recorded on the Subject Access Request that would account for this.
Your sincerely
#29
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 12:51 PM
Dear Mr ,
thank you for your e-mail of 26 March, 2014. I have looked at your records and will try to
clarify the queries that you have raised.
Looking at the Tribunal decision dated 11 September, 2012, this stated that you were no
longer sanctioned for the period 28 March to 10 April 2012. National Insurance Credits
were subsequently awarded to you for this period. The Tribunal decision dated 12 April
2012, stated that you were no longer sanctioned for the same period-28 March to 10
April 2012. This was not copied and pasted from the previous Appeal decision by
mistake, it was because you had originally been sanctioned for this period for two
separate reasons.
At your most recent claim to benefit, in February 2014, you did ask for your claim to be
backdated to 29 January 2013. Your application was successful, so National Insurance
Credits have been awarded to you from 29 January 2013.
With relation to the Tax Year 2012/13, I am pleased to tell you that you now have 50
credits awarded for this period. In discussions with the Benefit Centre over which weeks
were missing during this tax year, it was discovered that you had not been awarded a
credit for the week 8-14 April 2012, that you were entitled to. This has now been rectified
and your records now show that you have 50 credits for the 2012/13 Tax Year. The
weeks that you are missing are not related to a sanction. In order to qualify for a National
Insurance Credit, you need to be entitled for a full week, running from a Sunday to a
Saturday. The two weeks that you are missing are the 26 August 2012 to 1 September
2012 and 27 January 2013 to 2 February 2013. Although you were entitled in parts of
both weeks, you were not entitled for all of both weeks, which is why there is a gap.
I hope that this answers your queries satisfactorily. If you have any further
queries, please do not hesitate to contact me at this address.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Gregory
#30
Sent: 27 March 2014 14:44
Dear Mr Gregory
Thank you for the latest explanation and information regarding my disputed National Insurance.
If I have understood correctly the two weeks in question which lack NI credits (26.8.12 to 1.9.12 and
27.1.13 to 2.2.13) are down to a flaw in the computer system?
It seems that there has been a failure to include parameters in the system's program to deal correctly with
allocating NI in back-dated claims. Perhaps the system would only perform correctly if a claim ends on a
Saturday in relation to a claim back-dated to the Sunday following? A claim backdated to the day following
one which had ended, would for all [intents] and purposes be considered a continuous one, or what would
be the point?
It would seem reasonable that a claimant who had been advised to backdate a claim would either be told
that it would need backdating to the Sunday before the claim ended or if that was not within the rules,
be warned that a gap would be created. Are jobcentre staff aware that gaps in NI are created in backdated
claims; if so are they under any obligation to make the claimant aware of the position?
I doubt my issues have led to the discovery of this anomaly and would appreciate knowing what the law
states in this regard. My guess would be that a system's programming error which disentitles National
Insurance in a continuous claim would have provision in law that credits may be manually adjusted, or
failing that, a more general provision for discretion to put things right.
Of course, if a law covers this and the records can be manually adjusted I expect that the two weeks are
adjusted so there are 52 weeks awarded for 2012/13. If only a discretionary power exists, considering that
my claim (in both cases) ended in circumstances out of my control it would be appropriate that the
discretionary power is used.
Your sincerely
#31
To:
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 6:08 PM
Dear Mr ,
thank you for your e-mail of 27 March, regarding your National Insurance Credits.
The reason that you are not entitled to National Insurance Credits for the two weeks in
the 2012/13 Tax Year (26 August 2012 to 1 September 2012 and 27 January 2013 to 2
February 2013) is that you did not satisfy the Social Security (Credits Only) Regulations
of 1975, rather than any flaw in the computer system.
These Regulations state the circumstances in which credits are awarded and define a
contribution week. Award of any National Insurance Credits are determined by these
regulations, rather than any discretionary guidelines that can be applied.
I am sorry if this is a disappointing reply for you.
I hope that this answers your queries satisfactorily. If you have any further
queries, please do not hesitate to contact me at this address.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Gregory
#32
Sent: 31 March 2014 13:41
Dear Mr Gregory
There are several further points I'd like to raise and will deal with in the following order:
1. The Social Security (Credits) Regulations 1975 (SI 1975/556)
2. Appeal (23 April 2013)
3. Disentitled credits for 2012/13 tax year
4. Sanctioned twice for same period (28 March to 10 April 2012)
1. Social Security (Credits) Regulations 1975
I have taken the legislation referred to in your email dated 28.4.14 to mean the 1975 Statutory Instrument
number 556 which I have sourced (see http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a3-2351.pdf ). If assuming correctly
the regulations appear not, as you have stated, to "define a contribution week".
However, regulation 37 of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 2013 which defines a "jobseeking
period", may, if also relevant to a contribution week, be interpreted to mean at paragraph (2)(b) that a
backdated claim could on a technicality disentitle the claimant to National Insurance Credits:
"(2) The following periods are not to be, or to be part of, a jobseeking period—
.....
(b) such period as falls before the day on which a claim for a jobseeker’s allowance is made or
treated as made; "
In any event, whether the decisions to disentitle credits for the periods (26.8.12 to 1.9.12 and 27.1.13 to
2.2.13) were correct in Law they were brought about in circumstances under which the Tribunal
determined unlawful. See item 3 for details of appealing these decisions (disentitled credits for 2012/13 tax
year).
2. Appeal (23 April 2013)
I have now received information (28.3.14) in response to a second Subject Access Request (SAR)
requested 14.2.14 in respect of "All Jobseekers Allowance records". Provided is the form dated 23 April
2013 (GL24) appealing the decisions disentitling several National Insurance Credits.
It appears the complete form had not been transferred to Hull BDC Appeals team, perhaps only 1 of 2
pages; presumed because the department requested in a letter (7 May 2013) that I submit in writing
information I had already included on GL24. The same letter asked for specific information that was not
held and consequently could not be supplied; reasons for which had already been stated on GL24.
A copy of GL24 was not retained so when asked by Hull BDC Appeals team to provide (among other
things) a signature, it couldn't be confirmed that the form had in fact been signed, and could only from
memory describe the submitted comments.
I can now confirm that the form was signed and dated 23.4.13 with the following comments included:
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.
This would seem to confirm that the complete form had not been sent to Hull BDC Appeals team. The
likely error being that the same page may have been duplicated when copied by one department and
subsequently forwarded to another. This is all the more likely when you consider that a Directions Notice
(6.6.13) from the Tribunal asking for similar information included 2 copies of the same page (form GL24)
with no copy of the page including both my signature and the comments (above).
It could be that the appeal escalated to Tribunal, merely on account of the Hull team not being provided all
the details. If, as it is likely, one page had been duplicated, how had it not been identified and traced to
where the error had occurred?
3. Disentitled credits for 2012/13 tax year
It is immaterial whether a claimant may on a technicality be disentitled to credits as a consequence of the

way a contribution week is defined, in particular with regards to backdating a claim under the disputed
circumstances. Therefore the decision not to allocate credits for the two weeks in tax year 2012/13 will be
appealed. Unless the decision is changed I will take that of your email 28.3.14 as being the date from
which any time limits apply.
The grounds of appeal would simply be that it was determined in Tribunal Appeal (SC993/13/01435) that
in cases where a claimant is registered for credits only, a sanction or disallowance cannot be applied. Both
backdated claims resulting in disentitlement were made as a consequence of maladministration on the part
of the DWP. Had there been none, there would be no issues arising surrounding missing credits for the
2012/13 tax year.
Also note that had the claim not been backdated when made on 17.9.12 to cover the period between
29.8.12 and 16.9.12 (now confirmed by SAR), and details been known and provided to the Tribunal,
it would simply have made the decision that under the circumstances it was incorrect in Law to apply the
sanction/disallowance.
Backdating the claim it would appear had a perverse effect on entitlement and would have been more
beneficial if the gap in the claim had not been closed by backdating. In any event, it is more logical that the
decision dated 11.9.12 would relate to a period around that time than for a second sanction which is said
relates to the period 28.3.12 to 10.4.12 (see Sanctioned twice for same period).
4. Sanctioned twice for same period
It was stated in your email 27.3.14 without anything supporting the assertion that two separate sanctions
relating to Tribunal decisions made 11.9.12 and 12.4.12, where both made (for two separate reasons) in
respect of sanctions for the same period 28.3.12 to 10.4.12.
There is nothing in the information resulting from either of the SARs to suggest there were two separate
decisions to sanction for two different reasons and query why if I haven't received details how it is possible
that Grimsby Jobcentre staff have been able to state this as fact. It also needs mentioning that it was not
outlined in my grounds of appeal to the Tribunal that a decision to sanction was made on 11.9.12 and
therefore I am at a loss to know where the Tribunal learned about the decision. It was only implied in my
grounds of appeal that there may have been a decision around the 11.9.12 but certainly not in relation to
the period 28.3.12 to 10.4.12.
Your sincerely,
#33
To:
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 5:03 PM
Dear Mr ,
thank you for your e-mail of 31 March, regarding the four points that you have raised.
I have asked for clarification on these points and am awaiting a reply on this. As soon as
I receive a reply, I shall answer your queries.
your National Insurance Credits.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Gregory
#34
From:
Cc: Johnston Steve JCP CSD ; Walls Sally DWP GLASGOW SERVICE CENTRE
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:07 AM
Dear Mr Gregory
I would like an up-date on the points raised in my 31 March 2014 email, especially with regard to item 3
(Disentitled credits for 2012/13 tax year), as I have stated that unless the decision is changed relating to
the credits for the two weeks in tax year 2012/13, this will be appealed.
Yours sincerely
#35
From:
To: Johnston Steve JCP CSD ; Gregory Nick JCP 25+ TEAM
Cc: Walls Sally DWP GLASGOW SERVICE CENTRE
Dear Mr Johnston
Please find attached details of my appeal in regards the DWP's decision made 28 March 2014 not to
allocate two missing National Insurance credits relating to the 2012/13 tax year (26 August to 1 September
2012 and 27 January to 2 February 2013).
Please confirm receipt of this correspondence and give your assurance that this matter will be proceeded
with in a timely manner.
Yours sincerely
Note:
Automatic reply stated: “I am out of the office until Monday 24 March [April]. If [your] enquiry
is urgent or you need some advice please contact Richard Little 01472-622321 who has access to
my emails and will be happy to help.”
#36
From:
To: Little Richard JCP GRIMSBY BRIDGE HOUSE
Cc: Walls Sally DWP GLASGOW SERVICE CENTRE ; jason.feeney@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK ; Johnston
Steve JCP CSD ; Gregory Nick JCP 25+ TEAM
Subject: Fw: DWP Complaint - Tribunal Appeal Ref: SC993/13/01435
Dear Mr Little
I believe you are attending to Mr Johnston's mail until he is back in his office on 24 March 2014. Will you
please acknowledge this matter is being dealt with.
Your sincerely
Note:
Resent on 22.4.14 and read / opened on 22nd (Read Receipt) but no response.
#37
From:
To: Little Richard JCP GRIMSBY BRIDGE HOUSE
Cc: Walls Sally DWP GLASGOW SERVICE CENTRE ; jason.feeney@DWP.GSI.GOV.UK ; Johnston
Steve JCP CSD ; Gregory Nick JCP 25+ TEAM
Dear Mr Little
I have simply asked for confirmation that the attached appeal (Form GL24) will be processed. It would take
negligible amount of your time to reply and inform me either way and can only assume that by failing to do
so you are provoking me, perhaps in the hope that I may make personal threats and claim my behaviour
has been unreasonable/criminal in a bid to divert attention from the departments gross negligence.
If for any reason DWP policy does not permit you to reply, or someone is using their position
specifically ordering you not to for their own personal perverse satisfaction, I would like to know. Otherwise
please simply acknowledge that my appeal will be processed or if I'm required personally to hand in a
'signed for' copy at the Grimsby Jobcentre, I will do that.
Yours sincerely
.
#38
From: Little Richard JCP GRIMSBY BRIDGE HOUSE
To: ' '
Cc: Walls Sally DWP GLASGOW SERVICE CENTRE ; Feeney Jason DWP BENEFITS DIRECTOR ;
Johnston Steve JCP CSD ; Gregory Nick JCP 25+ TEAM
Dear Mr
I can confirm that I have received your Appeal form GL24. I have passed this onto our
Benefit Centre who will doubtless be in touch in regard to your appeal.
Thank you
Richard Little| Customer Service Team Leader and Lean Practitioner| Department for Work and
Pensions | Grimsby Jobcentre Bridge House | 225 Victoria St Grimsby DN311NH | Phone 0845
6043719 | Internal 622321 | Textphone 0845 6088551 | www.dwp.gov.uk | Follow Us On Twitter |
Please consider the environment before printing
#39
From:
Cc: Johnston Steve JCP CSD ; Walls Sally DWP GLASGOW SERVICE CENTRE
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:55 PM
Dear Mr Gregory
I've obtained an up-to-date pension forecast (27.4.14) in which it states I have now 27 qualifying years
state pension up to the tax year ending 5 April 2014.
Assuming the issues currently under dispute (tax year 2012/13) have not been resolved and therefore not
included, it appears the 2013/14 tax year may not have qualified.
To recap, there were 25 qualifying years up until the Tribunal decision. It has been confirmed subsequently
that for both 2010/11 and 2011/12, 52 weeks have now been awarded. Accounting for there being 52
weeks credited for 2013/14, the number of qualifying years up to the tax year ending 5 April 2014 should
be 28, not 27.
I would appreciate this being looked into as well as the issues raised in my 31 March 2014
correspondence.
Yours sincerely
.
#40
To:
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 4:47 PM
Dear Mr ,
thank you for your e-mail of 27 April, relating to your Pension Forecast.
I shall seek clarification from our Benefit Centre, over the exact number of qualifying
years that you currently have towards your State Pension. Once I have received this
confirmation, I shall confirm this with you.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Gregory

Emails

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Emails

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Emails

We have looked again at the decision dated 29/07/2010.

The new decision is that the jobseeker is not disentitled or sanctioned.

The law used to make this decision

DATE OF TRANSGRESSION ASSUMED TO BE 07/07/2010

The decision dated 29/07/2010 is erroneous in Law and is revised.

Overall the sanction/disallowance covering the period 07/07/2010 to 13/08/2010 is lifted.

Your previous claim to Jobseekers Allowance ended on 29/1/13,therefore if you would

A special payment may be considered under certain circumstances, if an individual has

thank you for your prompt reply to my e-mail.

Re: Tribunal Appeal Ref: SC993/13/01435

If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me

I therefore ask again who that person is.

Thank you very much for your email.

I will be in touch in due course.

To: Wood Philip DWP BENEFITS DIRECTOR SUPPORT

From: Gregory Nick JCP 25+ TEAM

Thank you for your further comments.

I am sorry if this is a disappointing reply for you.

1. The Social Security (Credits) Regulations 1975 (SI 1975/556)

2. Appeal (23 April 2013)

3. Disentitled credits for 2012/13 tax year

4. Sanctioned twice for same period (28 March to 10 April 2012)

1. Social Security (Credits) Regulations 1975

2. Appeal (23 April 2013)

I AM APPEALING SEVERAL DECISIONS. I DON'T KNOW THE REASONS FOR THE

3. Disentitled credits for 2012/13 tax year

It is immaterial whether a claimant may on a technicality be disentitled to credits as a consequence of the

4. Sanctioned twice for same period

your National Insurance Credits.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi