DWP destroyed reports linking benefit sanctions and cuts with suicide


Errol Graham, who starved to death in 2018, following his social security support being cancelled by the Department for Work and Pensions. He left a heartbreaking letter which described his circumstances leading up to his death. His family found the letter after he died, weighing less than five stone.

Department for Work and pensions (DWP) officials have admitted that up to 50 reviews into deaths following harsh social security cuts and sanctions have been destroyed.

The government has been accused of a ‘cover-up’ after destroying the reports which link suicides to sanctions and peoples’ benefits being stopped. Around 50 reviews into deaths following the loss of social security payments before 2015 have been shredded, officials have blamed data protection laws. 

However, the data watchdog has said there was absolutely no requirement to destroy the reports by any particular date and that a “public interest” exemption could have been used.

The Department would have known that. 

Labour MP Stephen Timms, the chairman of the Commons work and pensions committee, agreed it was a possible cover-up, saying: “I’m very sympathetic with that”

Timms, who said his committee would demand answers about the shredded reports, pointed out a scathing National Audit Office report (NAO) had warned the DWP was unable to show it was learning lessons.

Having been “very secretive”, it was now “very reluctantly” becoming more open, he said – but “trying to keep things as hush-hush as possible – and it’s not good enough”.

“It all underlines a lack of seriousness by the department about putting things right when they go wrong.”

The NAO investigation into the information DWP collects on deaths by suicide of social security claimants found that the department has internally reviewed 69 cases in which “alleged department activity” may have been among the reasons for such death. However, it said ‘gaps in reporting’ meant the actual figure was likely to be higher. The report said  said the department did not seek to draw trends from the findings of internal reviews, meaning that “systemic issues which might be brought to light through these reviews could be missed.”

The government seems determined not to adequately monitor or to learn lessons from the adverse impacts of their draconian policies. 

Timms added: “The law does not specify five years or six years and this kind of information should be held for longer,” in response to the DWP’s claim that data rules required the destruction of old investigations.

“In any case, the lessons learned from these reviews, there’s no reason why they should be destroyed. They should be kept and progress on implementing improvements monitored.”

A freedom of information (FoI) response to a campaigner revealed that up to 49 secret reviews carried out before 2015 were destroyed.

More than 100 have taken place over the last decade, amid growing concern over deaths linked to harsh benefit cuts and sanctions introduced by the Conservatives.

Labour MP Debbie Abrahams fought back tears in the Commons as she read out a list of 24 people who died after problems with their benefits, this week.

Regarding the 69 reviews since 2015, she told ministers: “This is just the tip of the iceberg. We do not even know the actual number of people who have taken their own life as a result of what they went through.”

In a statement, the DWP said: “We take these reviews extremely seriously and ensure cases are investigated and concluded and any lessons learned.”

However, that is clearly untrue. In fact the department and government ministers have consistently denied a ‘causal link’ between their policies and an increasing mortality rate, while also refusing to allow an independent investigation into the deaths.

The NAO criticised the DWP for lacking clear guidance on when a case should be investigated and for not having any “robust record” of contact from coroners about suicide cases, which it said meant some cases flagged up by coroners may not have resulted in an internal review being initiated.

It’s worse than disgraceful that people are dying because of  draconian policies and the actions of a system that should be supporting them. 

Many of us have called for the DWP to be held accountable through robust independent inquiry and regulation. The department has shown a consistent lack of transparency when reporting on systematic problems that have put people at risk, and has refused to open itself up to meaningful independent scrutiny.

Earlier this month, I reported that the DWP has been accused of altering disability assessment reports, to reduce or end peoples’ lifeline support. It was alleged that officials within the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) have edited or entirely removed thousands of work capability assessment reports submitted by privately contracted ‘independent’ healthcare professionals. This is another indication of the complete lack of transparency around DWP decision making.

The consequences of this government’s draconian social security policies

Many people have died since the welfare ‘reforms’ were hammered through parliament, despite wide opposition. 

Relatives of a man who starved to death after his social security was cut are taking legal action against the DWP.

Errol Graham’s family said they hoped the case would overhaul the system “to better protect vulnerable claimants”.

Errol’s daughter-in-law Alison Turner has sent a pre-action protocol letter to the DWP, arguing the termination of benefits for someone in Mr Graham’s circumstances were unlawful.

She also argues secretive investigations and reviews being conducted by the DWP into benefit-related deaths are unlawful and must be reformed.

Errol Graham weighed just four-and-a-half stone when his body was found by bailiffs who had knocked down his front door to evict him. He had just a couple of out-of-date tins of fish left in his flat, because the DWP had wrongly stopped his ESA. He starved to death, and his rent support had been stopped as a consequence of his ESA claim being ended. The DWP failed to follow safeguarding rules in their haste to end his claim. He was also denied PIP, which left him without any income whatsoever. 

DWP civil servants had failed to seek further medical evidence from his GP, just as in many other tragic cases that have sparked repeated calls for an independent inquiry into links between the deaths of claimants and the actions and failings of the DWP. The government have consistently refused to acknowledge a correlation between their actions and the death of disabled people, so have no intention of investigating the evidence. 

Assistant coroner Dr Elizabeth Didcock, who heard the inquest, was told that the DWP stopped Graham’s ESA entitlement – and backdated that decision to the previous month – after making two unsuccessful visits to his home to ask why he had not attended a face-to-face work capability assessment (WCA) on 31 August 2017. The inquest heard that it was standard DWP procedure to go ahead with stopping the benefits of a claimant marked on the system as vulnerable after two failed safeguarding visits.

However, the DWP (somehow) managed to stop an ESA payment that had been due to be credited to his bank account on 17 October, the same day officials made the second unsuccessful safeguarding visit.

DWP’s own rules state that it should make both safeguarding visits before stopping the benefits of a vulnerable claimant.

Because Errol lost his ESA entitlement, his housing benefit was also stopped. His family says he had also been found ineligible for PIP. Deprived of all financial support, experiencing significant mental distress and unable or unwilling to seek help, he slowly starved to death. He was 57. His body was discovered on 20 June 2018 when bailiffs arrived at his Nottingham council flat to evict him for non-payment of rent. 

His benefits had been stopped even though he had been receiving incapacity benefit, and then ESA, for many years as a result of enduring mental illness and distress that had led to him being sectioned. Errol was clearly extremely vulnerable.

He had also told the DWP on an ESA form three years earlier that he could not cope with “unexpected changes”, adding: “Upsets my life completely. Feel under threat and upset…”

He added: “Cannot deal with social situations. Keep myself to myself. Do not engage with strangers. Have no social life. Feel anxiety and panic in new situations.”

The assistant coroner said: “There simply is not sufficient evidence as to how he was functioning, however, it is likely that his mental health was poor at this time – he does not appear to be having contact with other people, and he did not seek help from his GP or support agencies as he had done previously.”

She concluded in the narrative verdict, delivered last June, that the “safety net that should surround vulnerable people like Errol in our society had holes within it”.

Those ‘holes’ are a consequence of deliberate, ideologically driven anti-welfare policies. They have intended consequences. The government assumes that people treated unfairly will appeal wrong decisions. Firstly, many people are far too ill to cope with the stress of that process. Secondly, it should never be primarily the role of courts to allocate social security fairly. That is the official role and purpose of the DWP.  However, the government department is clearly failing to fulfil its role. This is because the neoliberal ideology that drives austerity policies is incompatible with the central principles of social security. 

She continued: “He needed the DWP to obtain more evidence [from his GP] at the time his ESA was stopped, to make a more informed decision about him, particularly following the failed safeguarding visits.”

She said that a consultant psychiatrist had told the inquest “that Errol was vulnerable to life stressors” and that it was “likely that this loss of income, and housing, were the final and devastating stressors, that had a significant effect on his mental health”.

But she decided not to write a regulation 28 report demanding changes to DWP’s safeguarding procedures to “prevent future deaths” because the department insisted that it was already completing a review of its safeguarding, which was supposed to finish last autumn.

The DWP had promised her it would “listen to clients and to those representing them, and… ensure that the DWP was focused on support and safety for vulnerable people”.

Dr Didcock insisted that this commitment “must be converted into robust policy and guidance for DWP staff” and that the DWP must ensure that “all evidence that can reasonably be gathered is put together about a client, before a benefit is ceased”.

Disability News Service also highlights that the death of Errol Graham closely mirrors other tragedies caused by the DWP’s repeated refusal to make significant improvements to its safeguarding policies and practices.

Denise McKenna, co-founder of the Mental Health Resistance Network (MHRN), said the network was “absolutely devastated and saddened beyond words to hear of the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Graham”.

She said: “We are enraged that the DWP continues to treat the lives of people who live with mental distress as disposable.

“This level of cruelty is outside of anything that would happen in a civilised society.

“The fact that Mr Graham had not responded to attempts to contact him following his failure to attend the work capability assessment (WCA) should have raised alarm bells over his safety, but instead the DWP took the opportunity to stop his social security entitlements.”

And there’s the truth: the government have created a hostile environment for disabled people that is heavily weighted towards preventing successful claims, taking its lessons from rogue multinational insurance companies such as Unum, who have systematically employed strategies to pay out insurance only as the last resort, rather than on the basis of need. 

Furthermore, the DWP and Conservative ministers have consistently demonstrated a refusal to acknowledge the widespread distress, harm and death that their policies are causing, despite many challenges to their narrative of denial. Nor is it likely the government will address the complete lack of honesty, transparency and accountability operating at the centre of the DWP, of their own volition.

The government’s indifference and lack of remorse related to the clear correlation between policy and increased mortality is extremely worrying.

That is why we must continue to campaign, raise awareness and stand up for ill, disabled and vulnerable citizens in the UK. 

Errol's letter

Errol Graham’s letter, which was released through his daughter-in-law’s lawyers, Leigh Day , is a moving window into the world of someone with severe mental illness trying to cope with the hostile environment imposed on vulnerable citizens because of government policies. (Picture from the Mirror).

More people, like you, are reading and supporting independent, investigative and in particular, public interest journalism, than ever before.

I don’t make any money from my research and writing, and want to ensure my work remains accessible to all.

I have engaged with the most critical issues of our time – from the often devastating impact of almost a decade of Conservative policies and growing, widespread inequality to the influence of big tech on our lives. At a time when factual information is a necessity, I believe that each of us, around the world, deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity and the norms of democracy at its heart.

My work is absolutely free from commercial and political interference and not influenced one iota by billionaire media barons.  I have worked hard to give a voice to those less heard, I have explored where others turn away, and always rigorously challenge those in power, holding them to account. 

I hope you will consider supporting me today, or whenever you can. As independent writers, we will all need your support to keep delivering quality research and journalism that’s open and independent.

Every reader’s contribution, however big or small, is so valuable and helps keep me going.  Thanks.


24 thoughts on “DWP destroyed reports linking benefit sanctions and cuts with suicide

  1. The Nuremburg trials were quite clear. Individuals carrying out inhumane policies diredted from above are equally culpable. I am sure many agree with me that employees of DWP who enforce inhumane policies should be held to account.

    Ian White. ________________________________

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Reblogged this on Nathan Lee Davies and commented:
    I have so much to say at the moment, but I am not in a position to share what is going on with you. This is for a variety of reasons, but fear not you will be the first to know what is happening once I am in a position to tell all.

    For now, please enjoy the following post by the prolific Kitty S Jones from her entertaining, Politics and Insights blog.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I requested the DWP provide information regarding how my case was handled in 2016, in 2017 I had the Independent Case Examiner look in to the way my claim was ‘handled’ and asked for information to be made available and not be destroyed or lost.

    The ICE did a good job investigating the mishandling of my case, all credit to them, the DWP as an organisation however decided to destroy information stating it was ‘no longer needed for business use.’

    Despite being told that an investigation was happening.

    They stated that they ‘only kept the information for 14 months. ‘ I find that hard to believe as when I worked for a predecessor organisation they had records on people who had been dead for 15 plus years in their paper files.

    The ICE examiner had to wait for a year whilst the DWP eventually supplied information.

    But NOT the answers to 5 simple questions that they would not answer, on how a decision maker who stopped my benefits acted, why and how.

    The DWP also broke the law on Data Protection and GDPR regulations by withholding information that had been asked for within the timeframe of 14 months citing ‘case sensitivity.’ This information was not sensitive and was relating to the 5 simple questions on the decision. The DWP actively blocked the requests unlawfully.

    A piece of evidence that could have proved my appeal in my favour was not included in the evidence file. I wonder why?


  4. Hmmm it was reported back in 2010 that benefits were getting harder to get
    Yet each year reports to our MPs about the dwp and their contacters yet the house of I’ll repute did talks in the side rooms about dwp yet here we are today and dwp hasn’t changed only got sneakier aktion T4 rolling along with out much of a ado


  5. DWP Death Without Pity – so very very sorry they let you down Errol. That you had to supper the way you did…I’m ashamed to live in this country that does this to it’s people.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. So what? If courts find they have acted illegally they will just ignore them. If it’s taken to the high court they’ll ignore it. If it’s taken to the Supreme Court they’ll disband it. Can’t have judges pronouncing on illegality in a democracy can we?

    Sent from my iPhone


    Liked by 1 person

  7. Kitty – Have you seen this
    Vulnerable and disabled people are being pressured to accept unrecorded telephone “deals” paying thousands of pounds less in benefits than they may be legally entitled to, charities and lawyers have said.

    The Department for Work and Pensions has been accused of making “decide right now” offers to people who have appealed against a decision to deny them benefits. In some cases the people say they were told the offer would be withdrawn if they did not accept it within minutes.
    Past experience has taught me that, apart from close family and friends, it is wise to automatically record every single call I make or receive.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Kitty
    Just in case you missed it. This morning the BBC R4 Today program ran an editorial item on the death in 2013 of Mark Woods by starvation after another erroneous decision by the DWP and it also covers the wider implications of sanctioning or the stopping of benefits to vulnerable people and the lack of any meaningful safeguards.

    listen from 1:51:07 to 1:57:25

    Liked by 1 person

  9. No correct decision from the DWP, 2015; the Healthcare Professional, 2016; Mandatory Reconsideration, 2016; 1st Appeal, 2016; Final Response from CHDA, 2016; No Final Response from DWP, 2017; Acting Head of ESA Mainstream Operations, 2017; Distorted & Censored Report from ICE, 2018, which led to the incorrect decision from the PHSO, 2019 and the Member of Parliament for Boston & Skegness, 2020.

    Numerous Secretaries of State for Work & Pensions and 3 General Elections- 2015, 2017 & 2019


  10. To Mr. Matt Warman, MP for Boston & Skegness
    31st March, 2020

    Dear Sir,

    At this time of global crisis, we all seek good leadership, who will base their decisions on known facts.
    With regard to my personal crisis, I regret to inform you, the DWP have mis-informed you with numerous “unknown errors” – which I would like to explain:

    The Head of ESA Mainstream Operations is responsible for smooth running of the procedures and policies of her section of the Department for Work & Pensions. Whilst we can not blame her for the removal of applications, before the Work Capability Assessment, it is most certainly against the policy of the DWP and leaves claimants on long periods of “credits only”, where no further action is required by them.

    Disqualification of Work-Related entitlements only, leads to confusion and does not help the “customers” seeking Jobseekers or Support Group status.

    In my case, all the evidence was stacked against the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments, CHDA – the omitted selection criteria and the “false statements” given by the Healthcare Professional. The lack of commitment of the CHDA to investigate properly is now evident, leaving me to gain the mandatory evidence from NHS consultants – taking up their valuable time and delaying treatment that I may require.

    The authority of the Head of ESA Mainstream Operations is restricted to the “decision-making” of the DWP, not the placement of “Support Group” claimants. Lindsay Tickle was given the opportunity to withdraw my application to the Independent Case Examiner and the Upper Tribunal. Instead she endorsed the “Final Response” from the CHDA of October, 2016, without supplying the “Final Response” from the DWP.

    Unfortunately for her the DWP and CHDA have never amended this evidence not to the Upper Tribunal or the Independent Case Examiner. The letter from her dated 9th February, 2017 suggests I was wasting the time and resources of the DWP, but was willing to wait for the conclusions of the ICE – 18 months later. My case was “closed” by the “Lower Tier” on August, 15th, 2017 placing me in he “Support Group” with the “Statement for Reasons of Decision” issued September, 2017.

    This Decision not only over-ruled the Healthcare Professional; the 1st Appeal Hearing of July, 2016; the “Final Response” from the CHDA, but the Head of ESA Mainstream Operations. Once, again the DWP were given the opportunity to withdraw my application to ICE. The ICE Report of the 23rd October, 2018 remains contested by myself to it’s distorted and censored content.

    I am more than willing to continue this “battle of wills” and highlight the sacrifices I have made. However, I am also positive amongst the 500+ e-mails and documentation sent during these 5 years will prove the sufferings the DWP have caused is sufficient to claim the £1 million pound compensation of 2016.

    The DWP; CHDA and ICE will need to justify prolonging their reconsiderations procedures and wasting public funds.

    I consider this case was “closed” on the 15th August, 2017 and left the DWP and CHDA, two years to re-assess me – August 2019.

    The application (ESA50) of March, 2015 to DWP and the application to the Upper Tribunal, (Errors in Law) of December, 2016 are correct and proven.

    Yours sincerely,

    Maurice Spencer,


  11. Page 18 of ICE Report dated 23rd October, 2018 ref ESA50 13.03.2015

    For the attention of Mr. Matt Warman MP for Boston & Skegness

    DWP advised you to sell the house, but you said you could not because your two sons were under the age of 18. You said the consequences of your dealings with the DWP were that you had been unable to see your sons on a regular basis due to financial hardship and that you had reached maximum permitted amount on your credit card and overdraft.

    These FACTS remain MY responsibility and are outside the REMIT of the DWP; CHDA; ICE or the APPEAL SERVICE and were not discussed in our meeting of the 2nd March, 2020.

    The concerns raised in the letter from Lindsay Tickle, Acting Head of ESA Operations remain – 9th February, 2017.


  12. Mr. Matt Warman, MP,
    Member of Parliament for Boston & Skegness
    63 Wide Bargate
    PE21 6BA

    Dear Sir,

    May I please refer to your letter dated 22nd September, 2017 and the Decision Notice dated 15th August, 2017.

    The Decision Notice states I should be “Reassessed” in two years time
    The DWP implies my assets – once owned – where “connected” to the Appeal Tribunals Decision, yet there is no mention of my assets in the :
    Healthcare Professional Report – February, 2016
    Mandatory Reconsideration – April, 2016
    “Final Response” from CHDA – October, 2016
    Letter from the Acting Head of ESA Mainstream Operations
    – February, 2017


    3 Appeal Hearings – July, 2016, April, 2017 or August, 2017

    The information in this letter is incorrect – my two sons have never seen solicitors – even when sold August, 2019. The “private” arrangement, of transfer of shares was made July, 2015 – when my two sons were aged 16 & 17. Although, beneficiaries of this property, the deeds were held in the names of the Trustees – their mother and myself.
    I trust this obsession with my assets and income is now withdrawn.

    The DWP, CHDA and ICE should focus themselves on why I was given Support Group entitlements – when did my health deteriorate – December, 2016 or October, 2015 when told “You’re a rich man sell your assets”. If I was rich, I would not apply for Jobseekers or Support Group benefits – November, 2014

    Refused food bank vouchers, at the time I terminated my “carers” employment is outrageous – thinking I could sell assets within days.

    Please can someone name my disabilities – other than the Appeal Service and tell me when they occurred ?

    Does the ICE Report declare the re-scheduled WCA of August, 2021 or was this made afterwards?

    When did Income / Work related benefits stop? Is “Credits Only” an indicator of a disability?

    I have taken 5 years, out of the lives of my two sons to fight the incompetence of the DWP – it will never be forgiven or regain.

    Dramatic fall in numbers placed in ESA support group …
    September, 2016

    Suicide attempts by disability benefit claimants double …
    December, 2017

    ‘It’s inhumane’: the Windrush victims who have lost jobs …
    April, 2018

    And I still appreciate the settlement of my mortgage is my responsibility


    With the Kindest of Regards


    Maurice Spencer
    5 South Terrace, Boston, Lincolnshire. PE21 6BA
    Mobile : 07777697778


  13. What happen to common sense – the selection criteria is removed for the Support Group entitlements and the reasons for early-retirement – who made this instruction the DWP – therefore, it’s safe to say they knew of my disabilities on the 27th February, 2016 !!

    Audio CD E397E – telephone conversation of the 16thApril, 2016:
    Why am I told : “You must appeal” : when there’s NO MISTAKES in the Application Form ESA 50 dated 13th MARCH, 2015!!

    Common sense is resolved by Final Warning Letter from the Government Legal Department dated 1st April, 2021:


    HACKED – 17TH OCTOBER, 2021


  14. Further to the Final Warning Letter from the Government Legal Department dated 21st October, 2021, signed “GLD” for the Treasury Solicitor.

    Reading the Letter Carefully and the letters from the DWP, I note with the greatest of interest – ONLY E-MAILS FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2020 HAVE BEEN MONITORED – PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY?

    Further to my E-MAIL of the 22nd October, 2021 and the Mandatory Reconsideration of the 31st March, 2016:

    “no contact and none given”

    Restrictions have never been lifted – the resulted over 1000 e-mails have been rejected by the DWP, just like the mandatory evidence rejected by the CHDA, October, 2016 – please explain why?

    e=mail to GLD TODAY


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s