Responsibility for travel costs?

[Deleted User]

Principles are great, but one has to ask if its worthwhile, particularly as it seems there's no chance of winning the tribunal. Waste of energy etc. There's always things we don't like about the benefits system, its never going to be easy, pleasant or work how we think it should. But there just isn't anything you can do about this except cause yourself more stress and disappointment. They can do what they did.

Takmon

Millwall_Alan wrote: »

I wonder if anyone here knows the answer to this query.
I am currently claiming UC, had no problems, been treated well, had a few short-term or agency employments, but do far nothing permanent.
Last month I switched bank accounts, through uSwitch. All OK.
The day before I was due to be paid I received an email from DWP saying that I would not be paid as I had canceled my account, if I had a new one I must use my journal to give them the details. This I did. I then received another email saying that I had to make an appointment to see someone, face-to-face to confirm that I had changed banks, and I couldn't be paid until this happened. Contacted them, got an appointment for the following morning, told I had to bring proof of the new bank details, home address, photo ID, and would be paid once I had provided these
I accept this is the system, overly bureaucratic as it is, and attended.
My payment actually went through anyway, so everything was on the system. I had an appointment with someone I had never seen before, who didn't ask for any of my ID, just the new bank card, which she typed into her pc, telling me that I wouldn't get paid until she did this and how important it was. I pointed out that I had been paid, and she told me I hadn't. O well.
After this was done, I asked for a forms to claim travel expenses, was told that the DWP no longer has any forms for this as travel is 'absorbed' by UC payments.
I have always been under the impression that if someone decides that you have to do something to help them, or fit in with their system, they would be responsible for out of pocket expenses. In this case the journey was not necessary, as I was in fact paid anyway, I could just have easily provided the information over the internet with a photo of the bank card, and I had an appointment a week later anyway, when I could have brought the bank card in. Further, no checks were done, so if there was any sort of fiddle, nothing was done to prevent it. All they did was confirm that a bank account with the details I provided actually existed, which was not in doubt.
I have made an official complaint, got a call from someone claiming to be a manager, who repeated, several times, that my account had to be verified, so I had to meet any costs as it was 'for me'. Making the points above simply led to me being told that I had to be verified again.
Wrote to my MP, got a reply back from DWP yesterday, thanking me for my interest, but telling me that the DWP can only refund travel if it directly relates to job hunting, so I would have to pay for the travel.
It is now a matter of principle rather than about the monies (which was only £1.50 anyway) so I am taking it to the Independent Tribunal now, but before composing the letter to them, does anyone know if there is any legislation that states who is liable for travel costs, when instructed to do something that is entirely for the benefit of the requesting body, and which could easily have been done in a more convenient manner at a more convenient time, at no expense?
Looking forward to any responses received

Many thanks

Alan

It's a shame you don't put as much effort into job hunting as you are for this complaint; you might actually have a permanent job by now if you did!

[Deleted User]

For the sake of £1.50? Are you kidding me?

WhenIam64

Are you kidding me?

The OP has posted once, perhaps to see who bites.

Millwall_Alan

Well, two posts now.
Had to go to the ICE (Independent Case Examiner) as DWP agreed with most of the posters above. However, I have today received a fulsome apology from the DWP, accepting that they were acting incorrectly, outside of the relevant legislation and contrary to their own code of conduct, and that they had provided me with false information. I have been promised that this situation will not arise again, and that staff will be reminded of what the correct procedure should be.
As a settlement they have offered me £28.00 to cover my travel expenses plus notional compensation, should I be happy with the offer.
Being a reasonable and accommodating sort, I have of course accepted. It may not cover the down-payment for a second home in Tuscany, but as I made clear before, this was never about the money. I would have settled quite happily for just £1.50, but obviously I cannot control what the DWP wish to pay.
Although I will have to wait for 'up to five weeks to actually see the monies, I am quite content to wait.
Many thanks to all who posted with their moral support, educated responses and obvious knowledge of the law and good practice in this matter.

[Deleted User]

Any proof?

Takmon

Millwall_Alan wrote: »

Well, two posts now.
Had to go to the ICE (Independent Case Examiner) as DWP agreed with most of the posters above. However, I have today received a fulsome apology from the DWP, accepting that they were acting incorrectly, outside of the relevant legislation and contrary to their own code of conduct, and that they had provided me with false information. I have been promised that this situation will not arise again, and that staff will be reminded of what the correct procedure should be.
As a settlement they have offered me £28.00 to cover my travel expenses plus notional compensation, should I be happy with the offer.
Being a reasonable and accommodating sort, I have of course accepted. It may not cover the down-payment for a second home in Tuscany, but as I made clear before, this was never about the money. I would have settled quite happily for just £1.50, but obviously I cannot control what the DWP wish to pay.
Although I will have to wait for 'up to five weeks to actually see the monies, I am quite content to wait.
Many thanks to all who posted with their moral support, educated responses and obvious knowledge of the law and good practice in this matter.

So if it's really not about the money like you say then what did they say when you told them you only wanted £1.50 and didn't want the rest?. I'm quite surprised they were unable to pay just £1.50 and had to pay £28....

But considering you are getting £28 now you seem to have omitted to say what charity or similar organisation you will be donating the extra £26.50 too because obviously you would be a hypocrite if you kept it all.

Millwall_Alan

An English man's word?

Millwall_Alan

Actually, I did inform them that my total costs were £1.50, and that that was all I was claiming. Response was that they were offering £28 plus apology. I would think that they would be able to offer £1.50, but this is the choice they made.
The 'charity or similar organisation' to which the money is being donated is the Barclay's Ban Account of the sole representative of the Campaign for Me to have More Money, as, 1) I am a hypocrite, and 2) the monies are being sent to me, for my use, by a government agency, and I feel that it would be insulting to them to use it for a purpose other than that which they intended. With the DWP that may even be construed as fraud.

[Deleted User]

Haha classic