DWP accused of ‘institutional carelessness’ after chasing quashed debt and putting carer’s job at risk

TRENDING Stories Videos Your Say Despite the ruling being nearly four years old, the DWP claimed it had no record of the tribunal decision when she contacted officials to challenge the enforcement action.Officials instead asked her to send them a copy of the ruling herself.She works as an auditor in the financial services sector while also caring for her elderly mother, who is bedbound with complex physical and mental health conditions.She has not claimed benefits for the past five years.The enforcement action involved a direct earnings attachment, which would automatically trigger financial conduct compliance investigations at her workplace if implemented.She said the process risked damaging her professional standing and creating uncertainty around her employment.Despite repeatedly contacting the department over the past two weeks asking officials to halt the deduction, the DWP has not withdrawn the order.The situation has forced her to instruct her employer to withhold her wages temporarily at the end of the month in an attempt to stop the deduction from being processed.LATEST DEVELOPMENTSDWP warning as over a million pensioners miss out on benefit worth up to £458 every monthDWP crisis as nearly £10BILLION lost to benefit payment fraud and errorsDWP benefits crackdown: Universal Credit, PIP and Pension Credit among payments under fraudThe woman, who has cared for her mother since the age of 13, described the department's handling of the case as institutionally careless.She said: As a carer, you are already holding together someone else's life, health, safety, paperwork and dignity.When the department that is supposed to support vulnerable people instead creates errors, loses outcomes, blocks practical routes to submit evidence and pushes enforcement on to your employer, it is frightening and exhausting.It also makes you feel invisible.The DWP treated this as if it were a small administrative debt. For me, it was not just £163.73.It was my job, my professional reputation, my ability to care for my mother, and my confidence that public bodies can keep accurate records about vulnerable households.The dispute originally began in 2021 after the DWP added a carer premium to her monthly universal credit payments despite her repeatedly informing officials she did not want to receive the additional money.She had intentionally declined carer-related payments because of a previous negative experience involving carer's allowance and its complex earnings rules.A DWP Spokesman said: We apologise to her for errors in processing her case. We have cancelled her debt and issued a correction to her employer.She said she repeatedly informed the DWP through phone calls and online journal messages that she did not wish to receive the premium.Although the department later removed the payment and apologised for the error, officials still attempted to reclaim the money on the grounds they were legally required to recover the overpayment.She challenged the decision through a tribunal appeal, with the judge ultimately ruling entirely in her favour.The tribunal's written decision stated: The tribunal found that [she] had been paid what she was entitled to and nothing more.An independent Government-commissioned review published last year identified outdated computer systems, poor communication between departments and difficulties accessing historical records as factors affecting administration within the DWP. Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter