DWP's Six-Month Ordeal for Man Who Typed Wrong Salary on Form
Man's DWP nightmare after form error shows £325k salary

A Worcestershire man has described six months of bureaucratic hell after a simple typing error on a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) form led officials to believe he earns ten times his actual salary.

A Costly Typo Sparks a Bureaucratic Nightmare

Ian Davies, 50, from Kidderminster, encountered the problem after changing jobs last year. His annual income reduced from £48,000 to £32,500, prompting him to request a reassessment of his Child Maintenance Payments.

While completing the necessary form, Mr Davies made an innocent mistake. He accidentally added a zero, inputting his new salary as £325,680 instead of £32,500. The DWP's system accepted the vastly inflated figure without flagging it for an internal check.

"It was a genuine mistake. I'd just typed it in wrong," Mr Davies explained. "You'd think that the huge increase would have triggered some sort of internal check. It didn't."

Months of Frustration and Rejected Evidence

What Mr Davies initially thought would be a quick fix with a phone call spiralled into a protracted half-year struggle. He found himself trapped in a frustrating cycle with the DWP, unable to correct the record despite providing proof of his actual earnings.

"I'm just going around in circles," he said. "I upload the evidence they've asked for, it gets rejected, I re-upload the evidence and it gets rejected again. It's been going on for months."

Child maintenance is a financial arrangement to cover a child's living costs when parents live apart. The miscalculation significantly impacted the assessment of Mr Davies's required contributions.

DWP Responds Amid Ongoing Review

Following media enquiries, a DWP spokesperson addressed the case. They confirmed that the department is reviewing Mr Davies's situation.

In a temporary measure, they stated: "We have amended Mr Davies’s payments back to his previous declared salary" while the full investigation continues. This offers some interim relief, but the core issue of correcting the official record remains unresolved after six months.

The case highlights the challenges individuals can face when navigating complex benefits systems, even after making an honest and easily identifiable error.