What makes repetation of the work in BPI?

On occasions the service provided to the Ombudsman’s Office by some parts of DWP was unsatisfactory. The above mentioned reorganisation could have had some bearing on thatIn January 1999 BA disallowed Mr K’s incapacity benefit from October 1996 because he was found to be working. They also cancelled his national insurance credits for the same period, Building Inspections which meant that every subsequent claim for incapacity benefit failed because Mr K did not meet one of the two contribution conditions necessary for entitlement to that benefit.

Mr K complained that he had informed BA in 1996 that he intended to return to work and they had told him that he could work up to 16 hours. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, Jobcentre Plus accepted that Mr K had informed BA of his intention to return to work. Ms E complained that when she had called at her local BA Office to ask about her potential entitlement to benefits while her husband was unable to work because of illness.

The officials had told her that her income together with her husband’s sick pay exceeded the qualifying limit for working families tax credit and so they had not given her a claim form. Ms E maintained that she would have claimed sooner, had it not been for the officials’ advice. She had subsequently asked BA to consider compensating her for loss of entitlement to 19 working families tax credit.

They had investigated her claim and, in the absence of a detailed note of the conversation, refused it, saying that it was unlikely that they would have refused to supply a claim form when asked. In 1997 BA said that Mr N qualified for the higher rate of incapacity benefit and asked him to return his income support payment book. Mr N was unaware of this provision until February 2001 when he made the appropriate claim. BA refused to backdate his claim, and failed to respond to two enquiries made on Mr N’s behalf by the local Social Services department.

  • Share