Report warns service provided to customers is a mixed bag with levels of fraud remaining unacceptably high
Disability benefits claimants receive an unacceptably poor level of service from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). In a report published today, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) warns that the DWP’s understanding of vulnerable customers’ experience is not good enough, with how it provides customer service overall also falling short.
The report finds that benefit claimants received over £4bn less than they were entitled to in 2023-24. This increases the risk of financial hardship for the people losing out. This figure of underpayments has risen from £3.5bn in 2022-23. Underpayment rates are highest for disability benefits, such as Personal Independent Payment (PIP) and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).
The inquiry heard that disabled peoples’ experiences of the benefit system are often negative due to issues with the design of the system and how DWP communicates, with evidence that 43% of claimants with complex disabilities do not have their needs met through DWP’s communications.
Not informing DWP of a change in circumstances is the most common reason for underpayments – the report notes that many claimants need to call DWP to do so, but a significant proportion of calls go unanswered.
The PAC is warning that DWP does not understand well enough the experience of vulnerable customers and customers with additional or complex needs, and should gather the data it needs to gain this understanding.
The DWP conceded to the PAC that, while it had been using artificial intelligence to help identify vulnerable customers at the time of the Committee’s inquiry, it did not have a system to identify such customers on the telephone.*
The report raises continuing concerns about the potential negative impact on protected groups and vulnerable customers of DWP’s use of machine learning to identify potential fraud, and seeks reassurance from Government that claimants are not being treated unfairly through its use.
Recipients of PIP and ESA, the report finds, receive an unacceptably poor service from DWP. ESA claimants have to wait an average of nearly 30 minutes for DWP to answer their calls (compared to approximately 2 minutes for Universal Credit claimants). For new PIP claimants, only half of these are processed on time (as compared to 96% of new State Pension claims).
While benefits underpayments are climbing, the report also warns that overpayments are also on the rise, with £9.5bn of benefit expenditure (excluding State Pension) overpaid in 2023-24 – up from £8.2bn in 2022-23.
The report calls out DWP’s defence of its current performance: by referring to the challenge of working against a “headwind” of an increasing propensity for fraud in society. The PAC sees this as a dangerous mindset, stressing that it is the DWP’s job to improve its defences and ensure benefit claimants receive the right amount of money.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, Chair of the Committee, said: “Our report’s disheartening findings illustrate the stark disparity of experience between claimants for disability benefit and other users of the system.
“In some cases, claimants are literally calling for help and receiving no answer, resulting in increasing risks to their financial security. The British public would be forgiven for thinking the state is AWOL just when it needs it most.
“The DWP must do more to ensure that claimants are reunited with the money to which they are entitled, as well as to understand the needs of vulnerable claimants.
“Our Committee is closely scrutinising the use of AI in Government. While this Committee would welcome the use of AI for the benefit of the public, the onus is also on the DWP to prove it is using these powerful tools in a safe and fair manner.
!We are also as concerned at the picture of growing underpayments as we are with overpayments, and have little sympathy for the DWP’s argument that this rise is driven by a growing propensity for fraud in society.
“This amounts to saying that the DWP’s job is too hard to do well – not a defence that this Committee is prepared to accept.”
- Read the report
- Read the report (PDF)
- Read all publications related to this inquiry
- Public Accounts Committee
27
0
20
