Skip to main content

Cases

Three Cases, One Jobcentre: My Fight Against Systemic Failures at Cambridge Jobcentre Plus, and most likely all Jobcentres.

I need your help. This is my story of three interconnected legal battles against the Cambridge Jobcentre Plus and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). While the details are personal to me and my partner, the issues at their heart—the deletion of evidence, the refusal to follow clear government guidance, and the unwillingness to make legally-required adjustments for disabled people—are happening in Job Centres across the country.





This is a pattern of systemic failure. Here is how it has unfolded.

Case File 1: My Partner's Health – Staff deleting Evidence & Refusing a GP's Letter

For years, we have been in a constant battle to have my partner's health conditions recognised by Cambridge Jobcentre Plus.

In 2020, my partner reported a health condition that should have triggered a Work Capability Assessment. The Jobcentre failed to arrange one. To cover up this initial mistake, a pattern of obstruction began.

  • In 2023, Cambridge Jobcentre Plus after several GP letters, and letter before action,  supporting my partner's need for adjustments, a staff member claimed that a healed broken toe meant all other, unrelated, long-term conditions were also better. During one call, I recall the staff member shouting "I am the DWP" into the phone, which I recorded. Then after the call, to the 16 hours work, she added 16 hours work search. << (DWP cannot exceed max work hours with work search) 
  • In 2024, Cambridge Jobcentre Plus to hide their ongoing failures, staff deleted the original 2020 health from my partner's case file. They also deleted all formal complaints in 2024, we had made to the DWP. The 2024 complaints from GDPR were zero.
  • Cambridge Jobcentre Plus, then refused to accept a formal GP's letter as medical evidence, claiming in their Mandatory Reconsideration Notice that it was "not the issue".
  • In their submissions to the tribunal, Dec 2024 they barely mentioned the GP letter and, June 2024 submitted a 900-page evidence bundle with repeated, disorganised copies of the partners' journal.

Refusing a GP letter is in direct violation of the DWP's own official guidance. Their document, "103_Medical_evidence_including_fit_notes_V180", explicitly states what constitutes "acceptable medical evidence":

"Acceptable medical evidence includes a:

  • Statement of Fitness for Work
  • doctor's letter
  • terminally ill form - DS1500 or SR1
  • Benefits Assessment for Special Rules in Scotland (BASRiS) form"

The DWP is knowingly refusing to follow its own rules. The case is now at a First-tier Tribunal.

In a telling development, the Secretary of State's representative failed to attend the hearing—a common occurrence, apparently. The hearing was adjourned, but the judge has now explicitly ordered the DWP to provide submissions explaining exactly why they believe they can ignore a GP's letter.

For examples of other cases where the DWP stance on GP letters accept such evidence, see SSWP actively supporting and appeal KS v SSWP [2025] UKUT 015 (AAC), and JCP staff trying to make up rules for accepting other evidence  EE v SSWP 2023 Kesler Disability Rights.

Case File 2: My Identity – "NINO Gatekeeping" & The Fight for Email

In 2025, after years of helping my partner, I had to make my own transitional claim for Universal Credit. Despite having a National Insurance Number (NINO) my entire working life, Cambridge Jobcentre claimed they could not find me in their system because my last name had changed. This is not how ID works, as proven in cases like PHC v SSWP [2024] UKUT 340 (AAC). If all details match except a last name then see if anything else matches, are the the correct person?

They refused to use common-sense solutions to verify my identity, such as allowing Cambridge Council (who have already verified me) to confirm my identity to them. It was not until I made a direct claim against the staff did, the finally allow the Cambridge City council to ID.

It is that behaviour that make me think that this is personal. Why could they not ID, until threatened?

Crucially, my disabilities (affecting memory, auditory processing, and personal interaction) make live conversations, both on the phone and in person, extremely difficult. I require a "reasonable adjustment"—a legal requirement under the Equality Act 2010—to communicate via email. Cambridge Jobcentre refused. This refusal was particularly absurd, given that I have had an identical arrangement to use email with my PIP claim since 2020. The DWP's departments are contradicting each other, leaving me to face the consequences and forcing me to take legal action.

Case File 3: The High Court – The JR and Suing Staff Personally

Cambridge Jobcentre's refusal to allow email communication formed the basis of a Judicial Review (JR) I brought against the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SSWP) in the High Court. A JR is a legal challenge to the lawfulness of a decision made by a public body.

In its defence, the SSWP's lawyers told the High Court that the DWP did not have the power or policy to make the reasonable adjustment of using email.

Fed up with being lied to in formal court proceedings, I took the extraordinary step of launching a separate discrimination and data protection case directly against four individual staff members at Cambridge Jobcentre and the DWP's Data Protection Officer, who has refused to provide the audit logs from my own Universal Credit journal.

Where We Stand Now: The Current Legal Status

  • My Partner's Case: Partner v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
    Status: Awaiting second tribunal hearing.
    Our Argument: My partner has had Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity (LCWRA) since March 2020. The SSWP must accept a GP's letter as evidence.
    SSWP's Argument: Failure to provide a fit note.

  • My High Court Case: R (Ryan) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
    Status: Permission for Judicial Review was initially refused, and I was ordered to pay £8,000 in costs, which the High Court later reduced to £5,000.
    Next Step: Filing for a renewal of the permission application, due by Monday, 21 July 2025. [...PLEASE COMPLETE THIS SENTENCE about the fee reduction...]

  • My Personal Case: Ryan v (1) Wendy, (2) Sarah, (3) Carla, (4) Louise, (5) DWP Officer
    Status: Ongoing.
    My Argument: Direct discrimination, instructing the SSWP, harassment, victimisation, indirect discrimination, and breach of GDPR by DWP staff.
    Government's Argument: We have to see the 
  • My counter is that they are not involved in private legal disputes. Could they explain how they would be involved. They just repeated the statement in thier email.

Conclusion

This fight is about more than just my partner and me. It's about ensuring the DWP and its staff follow the law. Too many people are suffering because the system says no, because staff don't know the rules, and because the DWP does not seem to care that its employees are lying and deleting evidence.

My Situation

I am fighting these three cases while managing my own disabilities: ADHD, Dyslexia, significant memory problems, anxiety, and depression. I am awaiting further referrals for autism and mental health. I need representation and I need funds.

The SSWP wanted me to pay £8000 in fees for them misquoting me. Now £5000. This is confusing as SSWP said they did not have the power to use email. But then their frontline staff just did.

I obviously cannot represent myself in court. The last time in court I was a vulnerable witness.

Call to Action

Email me. Fund me. Support me and share this story. I encourage legal centres to help claimants take your their local JCP to court.

My Next steps:

I will prepare my case as well as my social media campaign:

Redacts and publish my journal

Redact and publish my partners journal.

Readacts and publish all material.

I will be publishing days of my journal as the hours go buy to help build the campaign and pressure for the SSWP to fix Cambridge JobCentre Plus, and all the other Jobcentre plusses. 

Hold conferences, press releases.

I will make application to:

ECF

Equality Commissioner again

The OSPT

Add updated to this page about the cases and any help

Set up fundraising page

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Day in the Journal: April 5th - The Broken System at Day One

A Day in the Journal: April 5th - The Broken System at Day One My Universal Credit claim began on April 5th, 2025. It began with a broken door. The very first, and most critical, step—verifying my identity—was an impossible task designed by a system that doesn't talk to itself. For nearly two hours, I was stuck in a loop, trying to use the GOV.UK Verify system as instructed by the Universal Credit portal. The system repeatedly failed, but I kept trying because the alternative it offered was a telephone call—a method of communication that is extremely difficult for me due to my disabilities. After completing every other section of the application, from housing to health, the system finally logged a crucial, but false, confirmation. The Ghost in the Machine At 11:16 PM on the night my claim was submitted, my Universal Credit journal was updated with a single, misleading line: Journal Entry: 5 Apr 2025 at 11:16pm "Confirm your identity completed" I...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Day in the Journal: June 10th - The Day My Consent Wasn't Good Enough

A Day in the Journal: June 10th - The Day My Consent Wasn't Good Enough The fight shifted. After the initial battle over my right to use email, Cambridge Jobcentre opened a new front in their war of attrition: consent. I was trying to follow their process. I was trying to get my ID verified via a third party. I was trying to give them the permission they needed. They had a choice: follow their own guidance, use common sense, or invent a new rule. On June 10th, 2025, they chose to invent a new rule. The New Roadblock In a message timed at 12:20 PM, a manager named Carla laid down the new law. She dismissed my repeated attempts to provide consent through my journal. She insisted on a single, slow, and unnecessary method. Direct quote from UC Journal: 10 Jun 2025 at 12:20pm "To progress your Third Party Verification request DWP requires you to complete, sign and return the forms via the return envelope supplied. Whilst email maybe your preferred option this w...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Day in the Journal: April 8th - The Day DWP Policy Contradicted Logic and Law

A Day in the Journal: April 8th - The Day DWP Policy Contradicted Logic and Law Every so often, in the dense pages of a Universal Credit journal, a single day stands out. It’s a day where quiet, bureaucratic obstruction turns into a clear, stated refusal to follow the law. For me, one of those days was Tuesday, April 8th, 2025. The issue was simple: as a disabled person, I had requested a reasonable adjustment to communicate via email, as is my right under the Equality Act 2010. The DWP's response was to schedule face-to-face and phone appointments that I could not manage. On April 8th, after I formally objected, managers from Cambridge Jobcentre put their unlawful position in writing. The Official Refusal At 8:49 AM, a manager named Louise gave the first clear refusal, stating they needed to "see" documents in person and offering a phone call as the only adjustment: Journal Entry: 8 Apr 2025 at 8:49am "Hi Ryan. We currently do not undertake ID ve...
Post a Comment
Read more