Has anyone had any experience dealing with Independent Case Examiner (ICE)?

If so, what is your experience? Good? Bad? Really independent?

I'm asking becuase I spoke the Ombudsman's Office today and they told me that they now insist on complaints about the DWP going through the ICE. I have to admit I don't remember hearing about the ICE until now and I've never referred a complaint there. But that got me thinking... If the Ombudsman insist on using the ICE as the last stage of complaining about the DWP, then surely the case examiner isn't all that independent (aside from the fact its another bureacratic hoop!). I've done a little bit of digging and apparently the post of ICE is advertised in the press, and officials from the DWP do the appointing...

This doesn't necessarily mean that they don't deal with things fairly and independently but, having fine reason for being totally cynical, the question needs asking.

What's your experience?

I've used the ICE twice (about 2 years ago when it was still fairly new) and found them effective in resolving disputes where the Pension Service's internal complaints procedure was going round in circles. They brought the dispute to a head and suggested compensation and the Pension Service seemed to take their intervention seriously (but see below).

However, you need to follow up on any recommendations they make and not assume that the DWP will follow through on them. In my case (non-payment of PC for about 2 months), although the Pension Service agreed in writing to resolve the dispute to our satisfaction and pay the recommended compensation they didn't actually do it. Months later I had to go back to the ICE as the Pension Service had still not paid the compensation and, yes, we got more compensation for the late payment of the first lot of compensation (you couldn't make it up).

I think the ICE was being piloted at the time and I'm not sure whether its effectiveness has been diluted by taking on an increased workload. Also found formal complaint to the Chief Executive of the Pension Service effective recently (with threats to go to the M.P. if not resolved) but the case was a real horror story of delay and maladministration so this may have been a factor. On my earlier referral to the ICE I also copied the complaint to the local M.P. and CE of PS.

Does the silence over the last 16 months mean that people are generally happy with ICE? I’m not! I took a complaint to ICE concerning a backpayment of DLA which had been paid into the wrong account at the Post Office because of a slight error on the claim form. Our complaint was that the DWP had failed to effect a direct credit transfer into the account named by our client, and had taken no action against the customer who had wrongfully withdrawn the money.

We got off to a bad start with a "gateway officer" making a series of unsatisfactory attempts to reframe my letter in a single sentence, an excessively formalist approach which wasted several weeks in wrangling over words. Once the terms had been agreed, ICE made a big issue out of the fact that the DLA form had been filled in by a member of our team. His office wrote demanding to know if we had invited our client to lodge a complaint against ourselves and whether we intended to claim on the Council's insurance. When I queried the relevance of these questions to the investigation in hand, ICE adopted a very hostile attitude. His report (a forgone conclusion which arrived several months later) contained some highly objectionable comments about the Welfare Rights Unit’s role in the affair, apt to undermine our client's confidence in us. I complained to Sir Leigh Lewis (Permanent Sec at DWP) but he declined to get involved. I would be very interested to hear of other people’s experiences.

David Paterson
Southwark Welfare Rights Unit

I've yet to actually take a case to the ICE - in the case that lead to my first post the ICE referred back to the TCO and we eventually got resolution.

However, I do have two complaints ongoing - one of which will go to ICE when the pension credit tribunal has been heard week after next, and the other which might go after we've had a reply from the JC+ Chief exec.

I had one case a while ago involving tax credit where the ombudsman's investigator took an unhelpful and judgemental approach to our involvment in the client's case in much the same way described by David that the ICE took. Maybe it really is all down to how lucky/unlucky we get with who deals with the case. I'm sure that's true of everyone - including us...

If my forthcoming experiences are not so good, I'll post again in a few months.

In our case ICE took on conduct of the investigation personally so we can't complain we were unlucky with the investigator. ICE seems to be in the unique position of being free from any official supervision. A complainant who is dissatisfied with ICE's findings can always go to the Ombudsman, but what about representing organisations who feel they've been unfairly treated by ICE? To whom do they turn? When I had a grievance against a tribunal chairman some years ago I wrote to the Regional Chair who engaged with the issues raised and produced a fair-minded response. There seems to be no analagous avenue for complaints against ICE, which is ironic considering ICE is forever directing the DWP to apologise! I think this is a weakness in the system which should worry us far more than the fact that ICE is appointed by DWP officials.

David.