Exploring take-up of missing Home Responsibilities Protection

Question 1

Executive summary

Accepted Answer

Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) was a scheme that helped protect the State Pension entitlements of parents and carers between 1978 and 2010. Some people may have HRP credits missing from their National Insurance records which could affect their State Pension.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) set up a Legal Entitlements and Administrative Practice (LEAP) corrections exercise to identify people that have HRP missing from their National Insurance records. These people are invited to apply to have their records corrected so they receive the correct amount of State Pension.

Between December 2023 and September 2024 HMRC sent letters to individuals who have been identified as potentially missing HRP, to invite them to check their eligibility and make an application. These letters were tested on a sample population to ensure that they communicated the necessary information in the most effective manner. HMRC’s Customer Insight Team, who have experience communicating with older and vulnerable groups, also advised on communication.

This research study aimed to understand why the majority of recipients of this letter have not applied for HRP and to identify the barriers with making an application. Forty in-depth interviews were conducted with people who had been sent a letter about missing HRP but had not applied.

Key findings

1. Participant profiles, key behaviours and attitudes

Participants were women over State Pension age. Their digital capability varied but most described little to no internet use. Many were reliant on adult children for support with doing things online.

Participants described themselves as extremely risk averse. Fear of scams was a considerable concern, but many were also anxious about engaging with government.

2. Awareness and understanding of Home Responsibilities Protection

The research focussed on those who did recall receiving the letter but also included some who did not. Those who said they did not receive the letter, thought this was most likely due to issues with their local postal service. Low engagement with the letter was a major barrier, with many saying they did not read it in full as they assumed it was a scam or was not relevant to them.

Those who did engage with the letter described challenges with understanding how the letter was relevant to them. The main barrier here stemmed from a lack of understanding that HRP was historic and linked to a Child Benefit claim they had made decades before.

3. Expectations and concerns about applying

Participants were uncertain about what, if anything, they might gain from applying for HRP, with most assuming that they would be due little or nothing.

In addition, they highlighted a range of perceived risks in making an application. These included concerns about scams, not wanting to engage with government, being worried about losing money, and being anxious about the application itself.

4. Actions taken in response to the letter

Participants generally relied on their own assessments of eligibility, rather than using the online tool identified in the letter. Limited or incorrect understanding of the HRP letter meant some were likely to have mistakenly determined that they were not eligible.

The two key barriers to assessing eligibility were being unable to accurately identify that HRP related to a historic Child Benefit claim or being unable to accurately apply the HRP dates to their Child Benefit claim. Among those who were able to identify themselves as potentially eligible for HRP, there were further barriers. These included feeling that the error occurred too long ago to act on now, and that a lack of paperwork or specific dates for their claim would mean they were unable to apply.

Reliance on family members for support and guidance created a range of barriers, including issues with sharing information to check eligibility, competing priorities, and participants not wanting to burden others.

The use of a digital by default process for checking eligibility and making an application for HRP also acted as a barrier for those who lacked the skills or confidence in using the internet for tasks like this. The digital approach increased reliance on family support and led to assumptions about further risks or barriers, such as the website being a scam or assuming they would not have the information needed to check eligibility or to apply.

Conclusions

Most participants described facing multiple barriers to engaging with the HRP letter and to taking action in response to it. There was a wide range of barriers identified, with most relating to a lack of trust in the letter or not understanding how the letter was relevant to them.

The level of risk aversion described by participants, paired with a lack of confidence in being able to accurately identify genuine communications from scams, was a major barrier with no clear solution. While participants expressed a need for reassurance and made some suggestions for reducing trust barriers, there was no clarity on how a lack of trust could be overcome.

The individual barriers in understanding the relevance of the HRP letter are potentially easier to address, however the number of barriers faced by many participants means that the potential impact of any one solution is uncertain. As most participants typically needed considerable explanation and support during the interview to get to the point of understanding their eligibility for HRP, changes to letter wording, for example, is unlikely to be enough to increase take-up.

Question 2

Glossary of terms

Accepted Answer

Term	Definition
Attendance Allowance (AA)	A tax-free, non-means tested benefit for people of State Pension age or over, who need help with personal care or supervision because of an illness or disability.
Child Benefit	A tax-free payment up to specified income levels made to parents or other people responsible for a child’s upbringing.
Disability Living Allowance (DLA)	A tax-free, non-means tested benefit for people with disabilities who need help with mobility or care costs.
Family Allowance	A benefit for families with two or more children. It was replaced by Child Benefit from 1977 onwards.
Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP)	A scheme which ran between 1978-2010 to help protect parents’ and carers’ State Pension. HRP was available to those who were claiming Child Benefit for a child under 16 and those claiming Income Support if they were looking after a sick or disabled person and were not available for work.
Legal Entitlements and Administrative Practice (LEAP)	A LEAP comprises any situation where a systemic or systematic error on the part of a Government Department has been identified, and this error could have deprived individuals of their legal entitlements.
Reduced rate National Insurance for married women (Married Women’s Stamp)	Until April 1977, married women could opt-in to a scheme to pay a reduced rate of National Insurance. Some of those who opted to pay the reduced rate by 1977 continued in the scheme after it ended. Paying the reduced rate of National Insurance affected eligibility for State Pension and other benefits.
National Insurance Number (NiNO)	A unique number for individuals used in the UK to manage the National Insurance (NI) system.
National Insurance Record	A record of all the National Insurance Contributions a person has paid and all the National Insurance Credits they have received.
Pension Credit	A means-tested benefit for people over State Pension age who have a low income.
State Pension	A regular pension payment from the government most people can claim when they reach State Pension age. The amount a person receives in State Pension depends on their age and their National Insurance Record.
Widowed Mother’s Allowance (WMA)	A benefit paid to widows of working age with children. It was replaced by the Widowed Parent’s Allowance (WPA) in 2001. The amount paid was based on the deceased husband’s National Insurance contributions and included their entitlement to State Pension.
Winter Fuel Payment	A tax-free, non-contributory annual payment to help older people meet the costs of heating their homes in winter. Payments are made to pensioner householders in England and Wales with someone receiving Pension Credit or certain other income-related benefits.

Question 3

Chapter 1: Research background and methodology

Accepted Answer

This chapter outlines the policy background and research design for this study, including the research objectives and the approach to sampling, fieldwork and analysis.

Policy background

Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) was a scheme that helped protect the State Pension entitlements of parents and carers. It ran from 1978 and ended in 2010, when it was replaced by National Insurance Credits. HRP should have been automatically granted to people who claimed Child Benefit for a child under 16, or who claimed Income Support for caring for a sick or disabled person. Periods of HRP entitlement were recorded on a person’s National Insurance (NI) record and this reduced the number of qualifying years needed to receive the full basic State Pension.

In 2021 to 2022, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) identified that an issue with the historical recording of HRP on people’s NI records had led to underpayments of State Pension. HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) found that National Insurance Numbers (NiNOs) had not always been recorded on Child Benefit claims made before 2000, and this had prevented the automatic award of HRP for some people.

Missing HRP awards meant that some people have been left with gaps in their NI record, which then led to errors in their State Pension entitlement. The Legal Entitlements and Administrative Practice (LEAP) exercise seeks to enable people to apply to fill the gaps left by missing periods of HRP, resulting in correction of their State Pension entitlement, and likely payments of arrears.

For data protection and retention reasons, Child Benefit records are no longer held from the relevant period, meaning there is no information available to match Child Benefit and NI records to identify the people affected by missing HRP. The LEAP exercise has attempted to find potentially affected customers by identifying people who have incomplete NI records and might have been eligible for HRP but have no HRP on their NI record.

Between December 2023 and September 2024 HMRC sent letters to individuals who have been identified as potentially missing HRP, inviting them to read eligibility guidance and use an online tool hosted on GOV.UK to find out if they may benefit from applying for HRP. Customers can apply for HRP online or by contacting HMRC for a paper form. Once an application is processed, HMRC update the customer’s NI record, and if of State Pension Age, this information is shared with DWP to process any State Pension changes and pay any arrears due.

The letters sent to those who had potential missing HRP were user-tested on a sample population to ensure that they communicated the necessary information in the most effective manner. HMRC’s Customer Insight Team, who have experience communicating with older and vulnerable groups, also provided a steer. To allay fears of scams, HMRC provided a webpage for people to check the letter was genuine.

In addition to the letter, HMRC have undertaken a range of actions to increase awareness of missing HRP. This includes extensive media engagement to stress that the letter was not a scam and provide examples of individuals who had received thousands of pounds in arrears payments, working with reputable partners such as Martin Lewis ‘Money Saving Expert’ and the BBC Morning Live television show to do so. HMRC also initiated and maintained close collaboration with stakeholders such as Age UK as a way of raising awareness of the exercise and the support available.

The content of the letter which was sent by HMRC to people who potentially have missing HRP is included in Appendix B.

Research aims and objectives

This research aimed to understand why a relatively high proportion of HRP letter recipients are not applying for missing HRP and to identify the barriers associated with making an application. Within this, the interviews explored a range of issues, including:

participant background and circumstances
recall of receiving communications on HRP
understanding and perceptions of HRP
response to receiving communications
barriers to making a claim and reasons underpinning these
suggestions for what can help overcome barriers and support take-up.

Research methodology

The research comprised 40 in-depth telephone interviews with HRP letter recipients who were over State Pension age (66) and had not applied for HRP. Interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes and were conducted between 10th December 2024 and 27th January 2025.

The COM-B behavioural framework was used in the development of research materials and during the analysis stage. The framework was used to ensure that all types of behavioural drivers (relating to capability, opportunity and motivation) for not applying for HRP were systematically explored. For example:

capability factors – barriers relating to understanding what the letter was telling them or what they needed to do, as well as to skills needed to apply, including digital capability
opportunity factors – any external factors (not receiving the letter) as well as not having access to support or tools needed to apply, including online access, support from friends and family or a third-party organisation
motivation factors – covering automatic factors relating to how they handle post in general and reflective factors which meant they actively decided not to apply, for example, thinking it would not be worthwhile, not wanting to claim something or thinking it could affect other benefits

The topic guide used in the interviews is included in Appendix D.

Sample and recruitment

The sample for this research was provided by HMRC, using the list of non-responding HRP letter recipients, and was cleaned by DWP to ensure the sample included leads with verified addresses, to reduce the chance that the HRP letter had not been received. The sample was then provided in two batches, allowing for recruitment and fieldwork to progress promptly.

The HRP letter recipients in the sample shared with Verian were sent a letter introducing the research. This letter offered potential research participants the opportunity to opt-out of further contact about the research, to call Verian with any questions and to contact DWP to confirm the research was genuine.

Following the opt-out period, recruitment calls were made by telephone to invite HRP letter recipients to take part in an interview and to screen them against key quotas. Quotas were put in place to ensure that the study included the sub-groups of interest, as well as a good range of wider personal and household characteristics. Primary quotas were:

recall of the HRP letter sent by HMRC, with a focus on those who did recall the letter to ensure that the research could explore responses to the letter and decision making
receipt of benefits other than State Pension, with a particular focus on Pension Credit
age of HRP letter recipient – all were over State Pension age, and quotas were put in place to ensure a range of ages over 66

In addition, information was collected on participants’ gender and the region they live in. No specific quotas were set for these and, reflecting the HRP letter recipient population, the achieved sample were all female and most lived in England.

Of the 40 interviews conducted, 16 were with people who ‘opted-in’ to the research by calling the Verian project helpline number to say that they wanted to take part in an interview. These participants were screened in the same way as those who did not opt-in.

To help encourage participation from a wide range of HRP letter recipients and to thank participants for their time, a £30 shopping voucher was sent to participants by email or post, after they took part in an interview. A table of the full achieved sample for the research is included in Appendix C.

Analysis of data

Thematic analysis was used for this research. This involved developing a thematic code frame in MS Excel to code each interview against a detailed set of themes which were based on the research questions and discussion guide. For each interview, researchers wrote a descriptive summary within the code frame, based on detailed field notes and audio recordings, including verbatim comments where possible.

As well as writing up descriptive notes, separate columns were used to allow the interview team to identify the key behavioural determinants at play, to ensure that barriers to take-up could be fully explored. Once fieldwork was complete, sub-group analysis was conducted on these barriers to explore any patterns for participants of different ages or in receipt of specific benefits.

Verbatim comments have been used throughout this report to highlight and enrich the research findings. The attributions for these include the participant’s age (using age bands) and whether they were in receipt of benefits other than State Pension.

Purpose of this research and limitations

This research primarily aimed to identify and explore why a relatively high proportion of HRP letter recipients have not applied for HRP. While the research did explore how the barriers described by participants could be overcome, it was not the focus of this research. Further, due to the extent of the barriers around awareness and understanding of HRP, participants were not always able to make suggestions about how they could be supported to apply.

Where suggestions for addressing specific individual barriers have been included in this report, please note that due to the complexity and inter-relation of barriers, there can be no guarantee that mitigating some would result in substantially higher take-up. Quantifying any impact on take-up is beyond the scope of this research.

DWP research on HRP

DWP also conducted a small study with six customers who were eligible for HRP to explore their reasons for not completing an application. The findings for this study are referenced where relevant throughout this report to bring together all available qualitative data on the reasons for low take-up of HRP.

The sample for these interviews came from a DWP Fraud and Error exercise which identified 58 State Pension recipients who had an inaccurate National Insurance Record due to missing HRP. Of these, ten customers had either not started or not completed an application, and 6 of these customers agreed to take part in an interview with a DWP researcher.

Please note that while the aims of the two studies and main findings are similar, the experiences of the two customer groups were different. While those who took part in the main study had only received a letter from HMRC, those who took part in the DWP research had received at least one phone call from DWP advising them to make an HRP application given they were known to be eligible. This difference in the customer journey is the likely reason for key differences in research findings, including customers’ level of trust in the information they had received.

The full report on the DWP research is included in Appendix A.

Question 4

Chapter 2: Participant backgrounds

Accepted Answer

This chapter provides contextual information about participants’ circumstances, behaviours and attitudes which influenced their responses to the Home Responsibilities Protection letter and barriers to making an application.

Participant circumstances

Reflecting the wider population of people with potential missing Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP), the participants in the research were women and most were aged 66-85 years old. Most participants were married or co-habiting, but some were divorced or widowed and were living alone. In some cases, participants lived with an adult child or with grandchildren.

Length of time since retirement varied, mainly by age, with most saying they had retired at, or before, their State Pension age. However, some participants were still working part-time, typically in professional roles which they could do from home. Those who were still in work, in some cases into their 80s, said they were doing this for financial reasons and would ideally like to stop working.

Age 76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

I didn’t expect to be working at this stage in life but I was always self-employed and didn’t have a private pension so I can’t afford to stop working now.

Some participants were carers, typically for their partner, and these participants described having very little time to do or think about anything that did not relate to their caring responsibilities. In some cases, participants were acting as legal guardians for their grandchildren, or great-grandchildren meaning they were currently claiming Child Benefit.

All participants were receiving State Pension but awareness of how much they received varied widely. Some could speak confidently about their entitlement and what it was based on, and others were unable to say how much they received each month. Awareness of State Pension amounts did not seem to be linked with other factors such as receipt of other benefits, age or working status. Regardless of awareness of specific entitlement, some participants were able to say with some certainty that they did not receive the full basic State Pension for someone of their age.

Age 66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

I don’t know how much I get in State Pension; I don’t really pay attention. I get what I get.

In addition to the State Pension, most participants had other income sources, typically a private or employment pension. They generally described these as being small due to having worked irregularly and part-time. Some received Pension Credit due to their low income and said that they would not be able to get by without this. Savings and other investments, including property income, were mentioned by some participants.

Many said that due to their limited personal income, they relied on their partner’s income to cover essential costs. Typically, those who were married or co-habiting said that their partner received a larger State Pension, along with a workplace pension or were still in work. These participants often described anxiety about how they would cope without their partner’s income.

Age 76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

I receive very little as I only ever worked part time. I wouldn’t be able to survive without my husband’s income.

While most described stable finances, there were frequent mentions of the rising cost of living and of the loss of the Winter Fuel Payment. Concerns about making ends meet meant that some participants were delaying stopping work for longer than they had hoped.

Handling of post

Participants generally said that they received very little post these days, especially from the government, which meant they tended to remember official letters they received. For most, these were letters relating to their State Pension, but some also received letters from HMRC in relation to Self-Assessment tax returns. The most recent letter most participants can recall receiving from a government department was to inform them that they would, or would not, be receiving the Winter Fuel Payment.

They described prioritising opening and reading letters and said that they almost always did this as soon as they received a letter, or at least within a day or two if they were busy with other things.

Age 76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

I don’t tend to get much post to be honest. Anything I do get, gets opened and read on the spot.

Many participants said that they regularly showed letters they received to their partner, particularly if the letter was something new to them or that required any action to be taken. Some also said that they regularly showed letters to other family members, typically adult children, if they felt they needed support with understanding or responding to them.

Age 66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

If I get a letter from the government I show it to my husband, because he deals with all those things.

Those who completed Self-Assessments tended to rely on an accountant to deal with all issues relating to HMRC and generally did not pay much attention to letters associated with this.

Digital Capability

While access to the internet was not generally a barrier for participants, confidence and trust in using it was. Participants reported a wide range of confidence in their own digital skills as well as confidence in digital tools themselves. Skills and confidence did not appear to be linked to age, with some participants in their 80s reporting higher internet use and digital confidence than those in their 60s.

Some were willing, able and confident with using the internet and said they used it for most areas of their day-to-day life, including internet banking, shopping and as an information source. These participants tended to be those who had been, or were still working in, a professional, desk-based job.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

So online banking, I’m confident. Emails, I’m confident. But if you asked me to upload loads of things on a new system, I’ll find that difficult.

However, this was more exceptional, and most participants reported either limited use of the internet, or no use at all. Where the internet was used, it was used for limited and specific purposes. This meant they visited a small number of apps or websites to get information, such as look for or compare products, but they did not generally share information. They also used social media sites and apps to stay in touch with family and friends.

Use of new websites or tools seemed to be driven by their family, normally adult children’s encouragement and they did not tend to look for tools or services themselves. Their internet behaviour was driven by a lack of confidence in the security and trustworthiness of websites, and in their own ability to make good decisions and get things right.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

Just Facebook because the children are on it, and we use the app, you know, the messaging app, between the family and friends and that’s all. I don’t really use the internet a lot…I don’t trust it.

There were also many participants who said they did not use the internet at all for any reason. They said this was because they had no interest in using it or lacked confidence in being able to use it. As with the limited internet users, this group also described being wary of security and being able to stay safe while online. However, while this group were not online themselves, they did still use digital tools and services by asking family members to do things for them, normally buying products or services such as insurance.

66 to 75, Receives Pension Credit, said:

I do not do anything online. I get my daughter-in-law to help me with that. I’m not confident at all.

While digital use and confidence did vary widely, one common factor among participants was that they did not typically use the internet as a general information source. Instead, they relied on word of mouth and media, including radio and television.

Support networks

Most participants relied on someone else, normally their partner or an adult child, for guidance and support with at least some aspects of managing their personal affairs. Those who did not have this type of support in place said they did not need it.

Participants who said they relied on their partner for dealing with personal finances and other admin, said that this was generally how things had always been in their relationship. Those who relied on adult children or another relative said this had started as they got older and found it increasingly difficult to manage things alone. Support needed from adult children or other younger relatives centred on digital tasks, including sending emails and online shopping, but some also needed help with managing things around the house, including dealing with letters.

66 to 75, Receives Pension Credit, said:

If I need to send an email or something, my daughters are very good and will help with that.

However, while most participants said they had someone they could go to for help, some also expressed reluctance to ask for help. This was either because they wanted to retain independence over their personal affairs, or because they did not want to burden their adult children. The reluctance to ask for help was also highlighted in the DWP research on HRP which is included in Appendix A.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

My daughter can help but she works full time so she’s busy and that means I need to take a back seat.

The extent to which a participant relied on their adult children for support was often driven by the adult child rather than the participant themselves. Many participants said that their adult children and other relatives were concerned about their ability to manage things, especially in being able to identify and avoid falling victim to scams. This meant that some participants had been encouraged by family members to either avoid engagement with anyone they did not know or to rely on others to make decisions about communications including letters, emails and phone calls.

76 to 85, Receives Attendance Allowance, said:

I probably gave some information I shouldn’t have done, but I didn’t know what I was doing, it was a considerable amount of money. Ever since my son said, ‘Look mum, just ignore everything, letters and calls’.

Participant attitudes

When exploring responses to the HRP letter sent by HMRC, participants’ attitudes towards receiving communications, the State Pension, and government in general were frequently discussed. These attitudes are crucial to understanding responses to the HRP letter.

Concerns about scams

Most participants described taking extreme caution when dealing with all aspects of their personal affairs due to fears of being a victim of a scam. Loss aversion was a driving force in their decision making and maintaining the status quo was generally viewed as the best outcome.

Participants were extremely worried about scams and described feeling ill-equipped to verify whether communications they received were genuine, or even how to go about attempting this. Some said they had been the victim of a scam in the past which had made them fearful of responding to all types of communication. Others said they knew people who had been scammed or had been alerted to the prevalence of scams by family members or the media.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

Watching television and scam interceptors and things, you’re frightened to do anything really.

When discussing these concerns, participants did not seem to distinguish between the level of risk with different types of communication; they did not feel that a letter addressed to them could be trusted any more than a phone call. To verify the trustworthiness of communications, most relied on family members rather than other sources, including online searches.

86+, No additional benefits, said:

We’ve been scammed so much. We’ve lost a lot of money from being scammed. So, we’re very cautious about answering the phone to anybody, and take no notice of letters.

Views on State Pension

Participants generally described low awareness around State Pension entitlements. When discussing how much they received, many said they were unsure of the monthly figure or what the full basic State Pension amount was for a person of their age. However, some were able to say that they were not receiving the full basic State Pension due to not having enough NI qualifying years and others were aware that they received the full amount due to being divorced or widowed.

There was a feeling that their State Pension entitlement had been determined decades ago when they made decisions around work and in paying National Insurance contributions. Those who had not worked regularly due to caring responsibilities said that this was simply the way things were for women of their age. Some of those who had worked for most of their adult lives expressed regret at opting to pay the reduced rate National Insurance for married women which meant they did not receive as much as they might have.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

I only get a small pension because years and years ago I opted for the married woman’s stamps, so I only get a very small pension and now I’m paying the price.

Some participants said that they had been offered the opportunity to make NI payments for previous years to increase their number of qualifying years before they retired. While some said they had done this to increase their State Pension entitlement, others said they had ignored the offer, feeling that the government would decide what they were due, and they would accept this.

66 to 75, Receives Pension Credit, said:

She said, if I paid £600 it would bring my stamps up and I would get the full State Pension. And I said, “Oh, do you know what I’m just going to leave it and just get what I’m due”, so I didn’t bother paying the stamps up.

Attitudes to government

Many participants described a passive, and somewhat distrustful, approach when dealing with government. Most said that they did not directly engage with government departments at all, and they simply received letters relating to the State Pension.

For some, a sense of distrust stemmed from previous personal or family experiences with departments, including HMRC, when dealing with issues like tax or settling the affairs of a deceased relative.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

I don’t like dealing with these people particularly.

Question 5

Chapter 3: Awareness and understanding of Home Responsibilities Protection

Accepted Answer

This chapter explores participants’ recall of receiving the letter from HMRC, their level of engagement with it and their understanding of Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP), both at the point of receiving the letter and during the research interview.

Receipt and recall of the letter

The research focussed on those who did recall receiving the HRP letter, to ensure that understanding of the letter content and decision making could be fully explored. However, quotas were also in place to include those who did not recall receiving the letter to explore possible reasons for this.

Of those who said they did not recall receiving the letter, some of these participants later said that they probably had received it but had not engaged closely enough to recall who it was from or what it was about before throwing it away. In some cases, these participants had experienced poor health or a bereavement around the time the letter was sent, meaning they may have ignored or not engaged with post.

Participants who were certain that they did not receive the letter said their confidence about this was based on receiving very little post and always reading and engaging with official looking letters. They said that they would not have ignored or forgotten about a letter from a government department.

66 to 75, Receives Pension Credit, said:

I think I would have remembered this as I get Pension Credit, so I always open my letters in case there is something I need to do.

Non-receipt of the letter was generally attributed to local postal services. Participants said that there had either been postal strikes around the time the letter was sent, affecting other letters they were expecting, or there were known service issues locally. These participants were able to provide examples of other important post they were expecting, including letters about hospital appointments and ballot cards, either being delivered to the wrong address, or not at all.

76 to 85, Receives DLA, said:

We had postal strikes around then, all over Christmas and into the new year. We had appointment letters from the hospital get lost, so this one probably did as well.

Engagement with the letter

Even though most participants did remember receiving the letter informing them that they may be eligible for HRP, recall of the letter itself was poor, with most being unable to say roughly when they received it or any details about the letter itself. In some cases, this seemed to be due to low engagement with the letter at the time, but even participants who had taken some action in response to the letter struggled to recall any specifics about the content.

Non-engagement with the letter was common, with many saying that they quickly scanned the contents and then either threw it away or filed it without reading it in full or attempting to take in the meaning of it. The two reasons given for this were that they assumed the letter was a scam, or they assumed it was not relevant to them and so did not bother to engage with it.

Assuming the letter was a scam

The most common reason for non-engagement with the letter was thinking it was a scam and not wanting to fall victim to it. For some participants, this had become their default response to communications after being a victim of a scam or being warned about the dangers posed by communications by family and the media.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

I think everything’s a scam, so I just didn’t bother… I just thought it’s out of the blue. I don’t know what it is, so just leave it.

Receiving a letter that they were not expecting about something they were not familiar with, prompted distrust rather than interest among these participants. The lack of personalisation in the letter, other than name and address also raised alarm among some, who said government letters were generally about their State Pension, which included specific details about their pension. However, participants struggled to identify the specific content (such as benefit rates they would receive) included in State Pension letters which reassured them that the letters were genuine.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

I just thought that it was a scam, and I shredded it. It’s just the way it was worded; it just didn’t ring true to me…The government letters that we get are usually regarding pensions which you know are genuine… They have your details on them.

Participants suggested that scammers were known to pose as HMRC to trick people into sharing data or making payments, so the use of the HMRC logo created suspicion rather than reassurance for some. These participants also said the letter did not feel genuine to them due to the length, wording and level of information. They expected genuine communications to be personalised and to say exactly what State Pension was due.

76 to 85, Receives DLA, said:

I didn’t really engage with it enough to find out what it was about… I felt as though it was quite badly written. It was so short; it didn’t really go into anything. I just thought it didn’t seem right.

Those who relied on support from their partner or other family members in managing their affairs tended to show the letter to them for guidance about whether they should engage with it. In some cases, these trusted advisors encouraged the participants to ignore the letter, telling them that it was a scam.

66 to 75, Receives DLA, said:

I mentioned it to 2 of my sisters, and they went, “Oh, it’s a scam”. They said they’ve seen something on the telly who said that anything to do with the government could be a scam. So, I ignored it.

Assuming the letter was not relevant to them

The other main reason for non-engagement with the letter was participants assuming that it was not relevant to them. These participants said that when the letter arrived, they glanced at the first one or two paragraphs and then decided the letter was not relevant to their personal circumstances and stopped reading. These initial assumptions about relevance were based on two phrases used in the letter.

The first was the term ‘Home Responsibilities Protection’, which was not familiar to them and led to assumptions that the letter was about insurance or benefits, neither of which they were interested in. Some said they knew they were not eligible for any benefits currently, including Pension Credit, so thought they would not be eligible for HRP, but they did not read the full letter or take in the meaning of it.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

I opened it and thought ‘I’m not getting any benefits so that wouldn’t be for us” and have just thrown it away.

The second term that led participants to assuming the letter was not relevant to them was use of the word ‘carer’. The word ‘carer’ seemed to stand out more than the word ‘parent’ to some participants who assumed that HRP was for people who had been unable to work due to caring responsibilities for another adult.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

I remember it said something about carers, and I thought, “Well, I think that’s probably not me, because I’ve been a worker”. So, I think that I made the assumption they’re talking about people who were carers, instead of working.

This assumption was also made by some participants who had previously been a carer for another adult, including a parent or a partner, but were no longer in this role, and so assumed that HRP was not relevant to their current circumstances.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

The outside thought I had was that somebody was checking whether I had enough Carers Allowance for nursing my husband, but he died before it was set up.

Understanding of Home Responsibilities Protection

Participants who did engage with the letter by reading it in full at least once, highlighted a range of barriers to understanding the content and the relevance to them. These barriers continued for many when HRP was further explained during the research interviews, with many still struggling to understand what it was and why they were sent the letter.

Understanding the term ‘Home Responsibilities Protection’

Overall, the letter was felt to be hard to follow and understand, with people feeling there was a lack of clear explanation about what HRP is or why the letter had been sent to them. As with those who did not engage, the terms ‘Home Responsibilities Protection’ and ‘carer’ also acted as barriers for these participants, both when they received the letter and when discussing it during the research interview.

Overall, there was very low familiarity with the term ‘Home Responsibilities Protection’ even among those who reported taking some action in response to the letter, such as checking their eligibility. Participants were not able to recall this term independently during the research and most participants said they had never heard the term before, even if they did remember the letter. This acted as a barrier to understanding and responding to the letter as it centred around a term they did not understand.

When HRP was explained to participants during the interview, most felt that it was a strange choice of name for something which seemed to predominately apply to mothers of children and was about their State Pension. They felt that this acted as a significant barrier to engaging with and understanding the letter, or why they had received it.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

What was it called again? Home Responsibilities Protection? Who on earth would connect that to State Pension? It sounds more like a type of insurance.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

Home Responsibility is a ridiculous phrase to describe motherhood.

Understanding of the key messages of the letter

Low awareness of the term HRP meant that participants said that they needed to spend time reading the rest of the content in the letter to attempt to piece together what HRP was and why it may affect them. Doing this required participants to understand several pieces of information and how they linked together, including that:

they received the HRP letter as HMRC thinks they may have claimed Child Benefit between 1978 to 2010
claiming Child Benefit during that period should have meant their entitlement to State Pension was protected through HRP, but this may have been missed
if they are due HRP, their State Pension amount may be increased by DWP
they need to apply for HRP

These pieces of information were generally very difficult for participants to identify and link together, with most being unable to do so in the interview without significant explanation and prompting. Missing even one piece of information here or not being able to accurately apply it to their circumstances was enough for some participants to assume the letter was not relevant to them.

The most common areas of confusion related to the relevance of the Child Benefit claim and the years in which the claim was made. Some participants missed the reference to Child Benefit completely and assumed that HRP was for a different group of people, typically carers of disabled children or adults. They then made assumptions about relevance of the letter based on this.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

It was for carers, and I remember the years they included did not fit as I’d cared for my dad after that.

Even if participants did notice the reference to Child Benefit, many made a quick assumption that they had not claimed it during the years mentioned in the letter. When discussing this during interviews, these participants immediately said they had not claimed Child Benefit for a child aged under 16 between 1978 to 2010, but after some probing it became clear that they had. This was a common and significant barrier to understanding why they had been sent the letter. The main issues with this seemed to be:

most participants were more familiar with the term Family Allowance rather than Child Benefit. This aligned with the DWP research included in Appendix A.
it was not always easy for participants to recall their children’s birth years
many participants were unable to calculate when their youngest child turned 16 and then compare this to the period mentioned in the letter
some focussed on the end date of 2010, rather than the start date of 1978, meaning they felt it was too late to be of relevance

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

I wasn’t claiming then as I hadn’t got children under that age…my children were born in 1969 and 1972, so I wasn’t claiming in those years, they’re wrong about that.

76 to 85, Receives DLA, said;

I missed the part about Child Benefit, but it still doesn’t fit as I didn’t have a child aged under 16 in those years…my daughter was born in 1974.

However, some participants were able to grasp the central point, that they may be due money from the government and would need to complete a form to claim it. These participants generally understood that they had received the letter as they had spent some years at home raising their children and that this is linked to their State Pension now. There did not seem to be any link to age, receipt of other benefits, or previous work history when it came to understanding this.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

It said that I might be entitled to a larger pension. It was clear to me that if, if I felt that I was entitled, I would contact them, and then they would go through the process of checking.

Regardless of level of understanding of what the letter meant, participants were confused about why HMRC were asking them to apply for HRP. The absence of information about the errors made in awarding HRP and the lack of existing records to rectify this within the department, led to significant confusion and some distrust among participants.

For some, the message that they may be owed money and would need to provide details to claim it felt like a common approach used in scams, and this caused concern. Others were bewildered by the idea that they received the letter because HMRC thinks they may be eligible for HRP, that HMRC do not have enough information to check this internally, but they are able to check information provided if someone makes a claim.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

Either you’re entitled, or you aren’t. Sending a letter saying you might be, but you have to check yourself and then we will check what you send…What on earth is happening?

Summary of key barriers

The key barriers in engaging with, and understanding the HRP letter are listed below, along with suggestions which participants made about how these specific barriers could be tackled.

Barrier 1: Non-receipt of the HRP letter

Although non-receipt of the letter did not appear to be a common barrier, it was a significant one for participants who reported that they did not get the letter from HMRC. The main suggestion made for overcoming this was for HMRC to send follow up letters to people who have not applied for HRP.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

Well, they should have sent a second one, surely? You can’t rely on one single letter to communicate something important to people.

Barrier 2: Assuming the letter was a scam

Increasing trust in the letter is not likely to be easy. Participants who thought the letter was a scam, said they did not feel confident in making assessments about what communications are authentic and so simply assumed that letters, calls and websites are all potentially dangerous. Some participants suggested that additional information, such as a leaflet about HRP, might have meant they were less likely to ignore the letter.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

Did they put a leaflet in explaining it, or was it just a letter? I would have just thought that was a scam so perhaps if they put a leaflet in explaining it, I might have paid attention and applied.

Barrier 3: Assuming the letter was not relevant

Participants who said they did not engage with the letter because they assumed it was not relevant to them also said that an information leaflet explaining what HRP is and how it might affect them might have encouraged them to engage with the letter. These participants needed the letter to feel more immediately relevant to them, so including relatable content in the first paragraph could help. For example, some said that framing the letter around their State Pension entitlements or around having a child born during a specific period could both have encouraged higher engagement.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

It should have said upfront that it was about my State Pension. I do receive that so I would have wanted to know what it was about.

Barrier 4: Lack of understanding of the letter

Many participants who did engage with the letter, either said they were confused about what it meant and why they received it, or were confident in their understanding, but were mistaken in some way. These participants said they needed the letter to be clearer and easier to relate to their lives. Suggestions made by participants included:

making it clearer that they, as women over State Pension age, are the target group for missing HRP communications.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

It didn’t feel like a letter that was for retired people in their 70s, it didn’t feel relevant to me.

making it easier to identify themselves as eligible, for example, by stating that they have received the letter as HMRC believes they had a child under 16 during the period.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

It could have been more clearly for people claiming Child Benefit, it wouldn’t have occurred to me that this was about being a parent.

focussing on birth years of their children rather than on Child Benefit claim years could support those who struggle to follow or calculate the relevant claim years.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

It could have said ‘Did you claim Child Benefit for any children born between…?’ whatever years it is.

explaining why people need to apply for HRP and why HMRC cannot determine eligibility from their own records.

66 to 75, Receives Pension Credit, said:

You would hope they would do the right thing by us by sorting this out themselves.

They also suggested that additional information or some kind of FAQs could be included in a separate sheet, or in a leaflet, which could make it easier to understand the letter, and make decisions about eligibility and impact of applying.

66 to 75, Receives Child Benefit, said:

Usually with things, you get a leaflet in there just to explain something like that. Then a question might have come up before which they answer and then you think ‘that is relevant to me’.

Question 6

Chapter 4: Expectations and concerns about applying

Accepted Answer

This chapter explores motivations to apply for HRP. It looks at how participants made decisions about whether they should apply, including what they thought they might gain, or stand to lose by making an application.

Expectations about positive outcomes

Participants did not know what they might gain from applying for HRP. The main barriers to being able to consider positive outcomes were not having a good understanding of what HRP is and not being aware of their current State Pension amount. This meant that when exploring motivations to apply, many participants said they had no idea what, if anything, they could expect, and others simply said they might get a little more each month.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

Well, I mean, having three children and being at home for quite a while, I just wondered if that would have increased my pension or something like that.

This lack of clarity about possible positive outcomes exacerbated the barriers to taking action which are covered in Chapter 5. If a participant was not sure they would get much, or anything at all, they were less likely to seek support with making an application, either from family or from HMRC.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

That’s probably not worth bothering with, you know, not worth looking into for what you get out of it.

Concerns about the impact of applying

While participants typically struggled to suggest what they might gain from applying for HRP, many of them were keen to discuss the potential risks to making an application. As discussed in Chapter 2, participants described themselves as extremely cautious and risk averse which led to a wide range of motivational barriers.

Fear of scams

Fears of scams was the most common motivational barrier to applying for HRP. Participants’ perceptions of the prevalence of scams, and the consequences of falling for one, led many to saying they would prefer to risk assuming the letter was a scam, rather than to risk believing it was genuine. This fear acted as a barrier to engaging with the letter, with believing it, and with taking action in response, such as using the online checker. As participants did not feel confident in being able to verify the authenticity of the letter or the online tool, they were often reliant on support and guidance from family members to make decisions and act on their behalf.

Financial Impact

Participants’ concerns around the potential financial impacts of applying for HRP included worries that their State Pension could be reduced, that they may lose other benefits, or that HMRC might say they owe taxes.

Due to a lack of understanding of what was meant by missing HRP, some participants were alarmed by the idea that DWP could reassess their State Pension payments. They reasoned that if it was possible for their pension payments to increase, then surely it was possible they might decrease. These fears then some to thinking it was safer to not engage in case they lose money.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

Well, if they adjust my State Pension then that means it can go down as well as up, doesn’t it?

Fears around losing benefits other than State Pension were also an issue, although lack of awareness around HRP, as well as how other benefits could be affected meant that these fears were not always accurate. For example, some who claimed Pension Credit did not seem to be aware that applying for HRP could impact their eligibility for this, while others claiming non-means tested benefits such as DLA wrongly assumed that they might lose support. As few sought expert advice about the potential impact of applying for HRP, they made decisions based on existing knowledge and assumptions.

66 to 75, Receives DLA, said:

I don’t want this to mess up my disability payments.

66 to 75, Receives Pension Credit, said:

I have no idea what impact it could have but my income, I would be happy with anything.

Finally, receiving a letter about missing payments associated with National Insurance led some to question whether they had paid enough in National Insurance contributions and whether applying for HRP might mean they receive a tax bill.

76 to 85, Receives Attendance Allowance, said:

Does that mean there is a possibility I haven’t paid them?

Engaging with government

Even among participants who believed the letter was from HMRC, some still expressed fear of negative consequences of engaging with it. This included not wanting to engage with HMRC due to negative past experiences, or simply a generalised assumption that they would be better off not engaging with government.

76 to 85, Receives Attendance Allowance, said:

I don’t want any letters from HMRC.

These participants were not able to describe what specific negative outcomes they thought might happen if they engaged with HMRC about HRP. When discussing this, some participants said they felt they should not voluntarily share information with government in case of unforeseen negative consequences. These fears were sometimes driven by family members, including partners and adult children, who advised the participant not to engage.

Making an application

Lack of understanding about what exactly HRP is and why they had been sent the letter led to concerns about their eligibility and ability to make an application.

Participants’ attitude to risk meant that some felt they should not apply for HRP unless they were certain they were eligible to and felt confident that they could provide full and accurate information in the form. However, due to the length of time since their claim and the lack of records, few felt that they could do this. These participants said that even though they thought they might be eligible for HRP, they did not think it was worth the risk in making an application in case they were wrong.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

I could possibly be relevant, but going back all that time, I can’t remember, what if I get it wrong? I don’t want to be accused of fraud or asked to pay money back.

Summary of key barriers

The key motivational barriers to applying for HRP are outlined below, along with suggestions made by participants for how these could be tackled.

Barrier 5: Positive impacts are unclear

Participants did not know what they might stand to gain from making an application for HRP and this acted as a significant barrier as many assumed the perceived risks to applying were more significant than the potential rewards. Participants said they wanted information on what they may stand to gain from making an application, for example how much they might be owed or information to make it easier to spot gaps in their National Insurance record.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

It should have said “these are the stamps you have paid, if you have missing years while claiming Child Benefit, make a claim.

Barrier 6: Perceived risks outweigh perceived benefits

Many participants described themselves as extremely risk averse and they discussed a range of potential risks to applying for HRP. Participants sought reassurance during the interviews that making an application would not involve them needing to make payments, that their State Pension would not be reduced, and that they can apply even if they do not have Child Benefit records.

Question 7

Chapter 5: Actions taken in response to the letter

Accepted Answer

This chapter explores participants’ actions in response to the letter and how they made decisions about this, including whether and how they assessed their eligibility for HRP. It also explores experiences of using the online eligibility tool and of contacting HMRC about HRP.

Personal assessments of eligibility

Most participants who engaged with the letter made their own assessments about their eligibility for HRP rather than using the online tool. Unfortunately, due to low levels of understanding of what HRP was, many participants made decisions about eligibility based on incorrect assumptions which are discussed in Chapter 3. These were that:

HRP was for people who had been carers of a disabled child or adult, not for parents looking after young children
HRP is a benefit, and they know they are not eligible for means tested benefits
they had not claimed Child Benefit during the years mentioned

In addition to this, even participants who had understood the letter or who considered their eligibility after receiving further explanation during the research, often tended to assume that they would not be eligible. The main reason for this was their claim for Family Allowance or Child Benefit was so long ago that they did not think it could possibly impact their State Pension now. This aligned with the DWP research included in Appendix A which found that customers did not understand how HRP could apply to them at this age.

For most participants, their relevant Child Benefit claims were from 1978 to some point in the 1980s. This meant that their claims had ended at least 35 years before the research. Being unaware that they are currently the main target group for missing HRP communications, many assumed that it was too late to act and that the letters were for women with younger children. As participants’ children are now in their 40s, 50s or 60s, they felt it must be impossible that they could claim something due when their children were young and so many assumed there was nothing they could do.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

You keep asking about my children. My son is 61. He isn’t a child. He’s almost at retirement age himself. How on earth can I claim something for having looked after him now?

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

Well yes, I did claim for my children, but they aren’t children anymore, they’re all grown up.

Participants who were divorced from their children’s father or had been widowed many years ago felt this would also have an impact on their eligibility for HRP, especially if they had remarried since. These participants tended to link their eligibility for State Pension during that time to their husband’s work status rather than to their own and so thought they could not possibly claim something they were eligible for during a previous relationship from so many years ago. This issue was also raised in the DWP research included in Appendix A, which found that customers assumed they would need access to personal information of their former partner to apply.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

I’ve lost one husband and divorced two others since then. This isn’t just a lifetime ago; it’s three husbands ago.

66 to 75, Receives DLA, said:

I’ve been married nearly 30 years now to somebody else. My two previous husbands are dead. All the children have grown up. It’s too late. I’m thinking that this can’t be anything to me now.

These participants also questioned how they would be able to make a claim for HRP relating to a claim that ended decades ago if they no longer had any records relating to it. Many assumed they would need to provide evidence of their claim and, as they did not have this and could not provide other information such as exact claim start and end dates, they believed they could not apply. In addition to this, the DWP research, included in Appendix A, found that some customers said they were unable to apply for HRP as they did not have any valid personal identification.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

We have claimed when the children were going to school but we don’t have those records…we don’t have any dates. So, we just left it.

Some participants did seem to make accurate assessments about their ineligibility for HRP based on their current State Pension or their previous Child Benefit claims. Those who were in receipt for the full basic State Pension understood that they would not be able to receive more than this and they generally took no further action. These participants said that they received full basic State Pension due to being divorced or widowed before they retired.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

When I was at work, we had a retirement talk. One of the things that came up was the fact that being divorced meant that you still got a full pension, even though you didn’t have full contribution, so when the letter came, I knew I wouldn’t be able to get more.

Others said they were not eligible for HRP because they had not claimed Child Benefit from 1978-2010. This included participants who said their children were not in their care during this time, or those who were widowed before 1978 so claimed Widowed Mother’s Allowance rather than Child Benefit.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

It said because I was looking after my son, I might be due more in State Pension than I’m getting, but my son didn’t live with me then, so I don’t know why they sent me the letter.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

I didn’t think it was relevant to me as I never claimed it. You couldn’t if you just had one child. And then I got Widowed Mother’s Allowance so wasn’t eligible for anything else.

Participants who made personal assessments and decided that they were not eligible for HRP did not typically take further action in response to the letter, although some were prompted to when contacted about the research.

Sources of Information and support with understanding and checking eligibility

Participants’ main source of information and support was family members. Some participants said they showed the HRP letter to their partner or an adult child to get a second opinion on whether the letter was genuine, what it meant and what they should do. These support networks were highly influential in determining which actions were taken in response to the letter. The importance of family members providing practical and emotional support with making an application was also highlighted in the DWP research, which is included in Appendix A. If the person that they showed the letter to said that it was a scam, then the participant believed this and did not seek further validation. In some cases, participants said their children had advised them that the letter probably was genuine but that they should not engage with HMRC and would be better off ignoring it.

76 to 85, Receives Attendance Allowance, said:

He didn’t want me to get involved in any kind of letter. He said, ‘Stay away from all of this. Just leave it alone’.

In general, adult children were useful sources of support for taking action with the HRP letter, but not necessarily for improving participants’ understanding of it. Some participants said they had showed the letter to their adult child who had agreed to look into it for them online. However, participants were not typically present while family members looked up information about HRP or checked eligibility on their behalf and these participants seemed unaware of the steps their child had taken or what they had found out.

Some participants said they had left it to an adult child to act on their behalf, but they had not completed the eligibility check. The main reasons for this were that the adult child did not have time to do it, or because they had hit a barrier in the eligibility tool and stopped. In these cases, the participants did not describe themselves as having not applied for HRP, they simply saw it as a task on their son or daughter’s to-do list which had never become a priority.

86+, No additional benefits, said:

I think he said he couldn’t answer some of the questions. I had to be with him or something. I don’t know. He gave up in the end.

Part of the reason that participants relied on adult children to take action on their behalf was because they believed the letter said they had to complete an online form to apply. Many of these participants either did not use the internet at all or only for limited uses, such as social media. They said that without support from their son or daughter, they would not have been able to take any action in response to the letter as they lacked the skills and confidence in navigating to and around the website. These barriers were also identified in the DWP research included in Appendix A, which found that IT access and confidence were barriers to take-up for some customers.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

Without our son, we wouldn’t have done it. We would have ignored the letter.

Examples of participants seeking information and support other than from family members was extremely limited. There were some examples of participants looking for information about HRP online themselves, but this was unusual and limited to participants who were still working in desk-based jobs.

There was just one example of a participant seeking support from an advice organisation. This participant said they did not understand the HRP letter and took it to Citizens Advice for guidance. They said that after looking into to it, an advisor told her that she should not apply for HRP as she may lose her Pension Credit and may end up worse off overall.

66 to 75, Receives Pension Credit, said:

They said, ‘You might just as well stay as you are, because you won’t be no better off, in fact, you could be worse off’.

Finally, some participants said that they had learnt about HRP from television, where they had seen people who had made successful HRP applications talk about their experience and the impact it had on them. Media coverage of HRP had a significantly positive influence on those who saw it, acting as both reassurance that HRP communications were genuine, and making it easier for participants to understand whether they might be eligible.

76 to 85, Receives DLA, said:

There was something on the television about it as well. People getting parts of their pension because they stayed at home to look after their children.

Use of the online eligibility check tool

The most significant barriers for checking eligibility for HRP were that the tool was online, meaning that many felt unwilling or unable to use it. Further, many assumed they would not have the information needed to complete the form. These barriers led some participants to either rely on a family member to check for them or take no action at all.

Of those who did attempt to use the tool, some abandoned it due to lack of confidence in the website, feeling unsure if it was genuine and deciding not to share information in case it was a scam. These participants said they did not feel able to verify the authenticity of websites and so decided it would be best to take no further action.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

I did look online and got to the part where you had to fill in information to find the details and everything. That’s as far as I went. I’m ultra cautious.

Others abandoned the eligibility checker as they felt unable to complete it, either because they found the tool difficult to navigate or they felt unable to answer the questions. They described the eligibility check as repetitive and difficult to follow and said they felt confused about what they needed to do or were unable to answer the questions. These participants tended to struggle to recall specifics of the experience but said they were asked to provide lots of dates, which they could not remember and did not have paperwork for to aid recall or act as evidence for an application.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

I remember getting to a point and I thought, ‘oh no, I don’t know the dates of that’. Then I thought, ‘I can’t cope with this, I’ve got too much else on at the moment’.

Those who successfully completed the online eligibility checker said that the process had been straightforward, and the tool had told them that they did not need to apply for HRP. These participants tended to be among the most confident with being online and who already had an online HMRC account set up for completing online Self Assessments.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

I went on the government site, the Government Gateway, and put in all the relevant details and it came up with a big message in a green box with white type that said, “You’re not entitled to this” or something like that.

Experiences of contacting HMRC about HRP

Lack of awareness of the option to get a paper form by contacting HMRC was a barrier for some participants who missed this content in the letter and expressed frustration that a paper option was not available.

Of those who did notice this message in the letter and wanted to apply on paper, there was a mix of those who called for a form and those who wrote a letter to HMRC. The channel used to contact HMRC seemed to be driven by personal preference of the participant rather than the messages in the letter.

Experiences of using the HMRC helpline for information, guidance and a paper form were generally poor, with participants describing long waiting times and speaking to advisors who seemed unsure about how to deal with their query. This aligns with the DWP research findings, included in Appendix A. Some also said that they asked to be sent a paper application form which had never arrived, and this experience put them off taking further action.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

I did call the Revenue to ask for a form so I could do it myself, but I never got it.

Experiences of contacting HMRC by letter were mixed. Generally, these participants were unsure about how to go about this, leading most to writing detailed letters including information about their eligibility. Some said that HMRC responded to these letters by asking for further information to assess their eligibility for HRP, and others were sent an application form.

The main barrier to take-up among those who wrote to HMRC was that some participants based their eligibility on the wrong information, typically assuming that HRP was about being a carer for an adult, not a parent to their children. These participants described providing information about being a carer to HMRC and being told they were not eligible for HRP.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

We gave them all the information about when mum came to live with me and when she died…They came back and said they’ve got no record of it, so as far as they were concerned, there was nothing else that I could do.

Among those who received a paper form in the post, these participants said they faced difficulties in completing it due to a lack of records for their Child Benefit claim, including claim numbers and claim dates. These participants were not aware that these details may not be needed to process a claim and so abandoned the form.

76 to 85, Receives DLA, said:

They wanted to know my Family Allowance number. I haven’t claimed Family Allowance for 50 years! Some of the questions were a bit…why are they asking that? I can’t remember.

Others said that they had completed the form and sent it back to HMRC but had not heard anything in response for many months. These participants were uncertain about what, if anything, would happen or when they might hear back.

Summary of key barriers

The key barriers to decision making about HRP and taking action in response to the letter are outlined below, along with suggestions made by participants about how these could be tackled to reduce individual issues.

Barrier 7: Incorrect assessments about eligibility

Participants tended to rely on their own assessments of eligibility for HRP rather than the HMRC eligibility checker and due to a lack of understanding of the letter or detailed information about eligibility, some potentially got this wrong. In addition to the suggestions participants made to improve understanding of the letter, which are outlined in Chapter 3, some participants said they needed eligibility for HRP to be clearer. They also wanted to know what information or records would be needed to make an application.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

The eligibility thing needs to be a bit clearer. It was a bit ambiguous altogether.

Barrier 8: Reliance on family members to take action

While family members were generally a vital source of support for many participants, reliance on them to make decisions about HRP and in taking action to check eligibility or make a claim did act as a barrier in many cases.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

I asked my son, and he was going to do it for me but at the time he was extremely busy and then he wasn’t well, so I didn’t pursue it.

Barrier 9: Digital by default application process

Most participants who took action in response to the letter did not personally use the online information or eligibility tool they were signposted to. Due to lack of trust, confidence or skills, or often a combination of all three, participants instead relied on their own assessments of eligibility or on family members to handle the digital process for them.

While some did contact HMRC for a paper form, it was felt that this option was not made clear enough in the letter, and there were some issues with explaining what they needed to HMRC helpline staff, and with forms not arriving.

Participants wanted easier access to a paper version of the application form and some said that this should have been included with the letters, rather than them needing to call to request one.

66 to 75, No additional benefits, said:

I wouldn’t do it online as I don’t like troubling the children unless I have to. I prefer to do things myself.

76 to 85, No additional benefits, said:

If they had sent a paper form, I would have filled it in the same day.

Question 8

Chapter 6: Conclusions

Accepted Answer

This research identified a wide range of reasons for Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) letter recipients not making an application for HRP. These barriers to take-up included issues around awareness and understanding of the relevance of the letter, issues relating to the process, and motivational barriers.

While the research has identified many specific barriers across these areas, most of them can be categorised as barriers relating to trust and barriers relating to understanding the relevance of HRP.

Issues relating to trust appeared to be the most significant type of barrier as they encouraged a lack of engagement with the letter and reticence to seek further information or support, which could improve awareness and understanding. Trust related barriers included fear of scams as well as a reluctance to engage with government. Trust barriers could be tackled by providing reassurance that HRP communications are authentic, and by providing clarity around the possible outcomes of applying for HRP. However, level of distrust and risk aversion described by participants means that overcoming trust related barriers would be extremely challenging.

Issues relating to understanding the relevance of the letter stem from a lack of familiarity with HRP itself, and with not being able to apply the information provided in the letter to determine eligibility. Participants typically struggled a great deal with understanding the key points in the letter and in being able to link a historic Child Benefit claim to their current circumstances as State Pensioners. While participants did make some suggestions for improving clarity about HRP, the number and extent of the barriers around this mean that a considerable amount of explanation and support is likely to be needed to support take-up.

In addition to these two key barrier types, the digital by default approach used for checking eligibility and making an application was a barrier for many who lacked the trust, confidence or skills to navigate these tools. This led them to either taking no action at all or to relying on others to act on their behalf which raised new barriers. Clearer guidance on how to take action without using these tools may also support take-up. In most cases, participants in this research highlighted multiple barriers to take-up across the journey, with many describing issues relating to trust and understanding the relevance, as well as access. This means that tackling a single barrier is not likely to be enough to change behaviour. When these barriers were removed during interviews by providing reassurance, explanation about HRP and guidance for getting a paper form, participants said they were interested and motivated to take action. However, the amount of personalised explanation and support needed to get to this point was extensive.

Question 9

Appendix A:  Research on low take-up for missing Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) amongst a group contacted by DWP/HMRC

Accepted Answer

This research was conducted by Poppy Heppell and Vicki Brown at DWP

Key Findings Summary

The DWP conducted research into the reasons why people entitled to HRP had not responded to HMRC and/or DWP contact about applying. A sample of ten eligible customers was provided and six telephone interviews were achieved, including one appointee.

The research with this small group of customers identified that some had not started an application, others had started the application but not completed it and one respondent had submitted an incomplete application and had it rejected.

Overall awareness of HRP was low and recollection of contact from HMRC and DWP varied.

The customers had vulnerabilities and faced multiple process barriers to accessing HRP. Process barriers refer to issues identified by participants in their understanding, interaction and engagement with HMRC and/or DWP through HRP communications and processes.

These barriers were significantly compounded for participants due to their complex health and care needs associated with reported physical and cognitive comorbidities and older age.

Background

Between 2021 and 2024, the DWP Fraud and Error Sampling Team identified fifty-eight State Pension recipients as having an inaccurate National Insurance record due to missing HRP and estimated them to be due an arrears payment and an ongoing higher State Pension award. These individuals were contacted by DWP and made aware that their National Insurance records were inaccurate due to missing HRP and were invited to apply to HMRC to get this corrected.

Of the original group, ten individuals had either not started an application or had submitted an incomplete application and had not responded to requests for further information from HMRC when contacted. Of the ten people in the sample, one opted out of the research, three were uncontactable (for example, one had a call screener set up on the phone, so it automatically diverted to answer machine) and six participated. Qualitative telephone interviews took place in November 2024.

The research focused on the following questions:

1. What are the characteristics of this group?
2. To what extent do people understand HRP and their own entitlement to it?
3. Are this group aware of how to apply for HRP?
4. What are the reasons for not applying for HRP?

Key characteristics

All individuals in this research were telephoned at least once by DWP between 2021 to 2024 and were notified of the HRP issue and advised to make an application. Some individuals also received a written letter from HMRC which let them know “they may be eligible for Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP)” and signposted to guidance on checking their eligibility or making an online application.

The population for this research were female. They were mothers who had claimed Child Benefit during the time that the HRP scheme was in place.

Some were on benefits including Pension Credit, Housing Benefit and Personal Independence Payment. One participant was in a nursing home, so DWP interviewed their appointee. One participant lived in sheltered housing.

Main Findings

The research found this small group of people fell into the following categories:

those who have not started an application for their missing HRP
had started but not finished an application for HRP
were an appointee who had started an application, but not finished, on behalf of their parent
had submitted an incomplete application and have not responded to requests from HMRC when contacted about it

Understanding and awareness of HRP was poor

Overall, awareness of HRP was low. All participants had received Child Benefit when much younger and some did not understand how HRP could apply to them at this age. Familiarity with the terms ‘child benefit’ and ‘family allowance’ was better, although awareness of how this linked with HRP entitlement was poor. Overall, terminology is an issue, and communications would benefit from being as clear and simplistic as possible.

Recalling communications from DWP and/or HMRC regarding HRP

Whilst some participants were able to recall being contacted by DWP and/or HMRC, for others this was more challenging. This is unsurprising given the amount of time that may have passed since contact, but also because of some of the cognitive issues experienced.

Of those that recalled speaking to DWP, some seemed content with the contact. However, one customer expressed that they felt pressure to apply for HRP.

Customer interview:

I really felt I was badgered into doing it…felt I was badgered and chased up…I also felt I was slightly threatened if I didn’t take part, I would lose some of that (income/State Pension)…I got phone calls and as I say the woman on the phone call was lovely, but I definitely got the impression that, well, I felt very anxious…that I had to apply for it

Reasons for not applying or starting an application and not finishing it

There were a number of process barriers which prevented people applying for HRP or starting an application and not completing it. These included:

complex terminology which people did not understand
assumed ownership of personal identification documents. For example, some did not have up to date ID
assumed access to estranged family members personal information (for example, children or ex-partners). An example of this: “A question about my son’s father… I don’t know whether he is still alive or not. I didn’t know my National Insurance Number so I left that blank.”
digital literacy – IT capability was an issue for some
requirement of Equipment. Some did not have a computer/laptop or a printer
additional support needs – this group rely on others (relatives/friends) for support such as completing forms, using IT and printing documents. Not everyone had access to such support and when they did, some mentioned not wanting to burden others for help. This is addressed in further detail below
mobility assumptions. If you cannot apply online you are requested to post the form back to HMRC. Some had mobility issues and they could not get to a post office without help (one mentioned her daughter helped with these errands; another customer had suffered a stroke and did not feel safe on her mobility scooter in the wet and/or cold weather to travel to the post office, so had not applied)
lack of a nominated contact for further information – this may be an awareness issue, although one person had called the HMRC helpline and had not found it a positive experience

It is important not to see these barriers in isolation; people were experiencing a multitude of issues, compounded by complex health and care needs associated with reported physical and cognitive comorbidities and older age.

The one appointee interviewed also experienced some of the above barriers i.e. the appointee’s mother had moved into a care home. The appointee tried to make an application but could not provide up to date evidencing documents (passport, utility bills, driving license):

Customer interview:

…my mum never drove…so no driving license…there must have been something I could of used you know…by doing it all online its very much, you know, you gotta have certain things…it’s all got to be formatted…

The appointee felt stressed by the process and did not proceed with the application.

Additional Support Needs

As listed in the barriers above, the need for and importance of having additional support was referenced throughout the research. Often this came from family members or other trusted individuals, but not everyone had this. Participants needed support in all aspects of the process from trying to understand letters and what they were entitled to; completing the application itself; completing the application online or in physically posting their application.

Customer interview:

My daughter-in-law filled it out …she filled it in, and she posted it off and she sent me a picture that she posted [it]…I’m a bit immobile

Customer interview:

One of my daughters helped me, with my age I don’t do computers she helped…

Customer interview:

…the man I spoke to a few years ago…said you can go online and find a form…I’m not very good online and I didn’t process…the man helped me…but I just didn’t bother…

Emotional support from family members was also seen by one participant as important, when feeling stressed and anxious about understanding the impact of applying for their missing HRP:

Customer interview:

…not everyone’s got a daughter to calm you down…it really was a negative experience.

The findings from this group of six interviewees show that process barriers alongside physical and cognitive comorbidities prevented them from applying. This is despite individuals having received confirmation of their inaccurate National Insurance records due to missing HRP and having telephone contact from DWP.

Question 10

Appendix B: HRP letter wording

Accepted Answer

Dear XX

You may be eligible for Home Responsibilities Protection

Our records show that you may be eligible for Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP). This is not currently on your National Insurance record.

HRP was a scheme to help protect parents’ and carers’ entitlement to State Pension. It was replaced in 2010 by National Insurance credits.

We want to help you make sure you receive the right amount of State Pension, so we’re asking you to check if you were eligible for HRP between 1978 and 2010.

You may have been eligible if you received Child Benefit for a child under 16.

How to check if you were eligible

1. You need to read our guidance first. Go to GOV.UK and search ‘home responsibilities protection eligibility’
2. Once you’ve read the guidance, you can use the eligibility checker, which can be found in the eligibility section

If the checker confirms you were eligible, you can claim online. If you send us a claim without checking that you’re eligible, it could delay your application, and your application may be rejected.

If your claim is successful

We’ll update your National Insurance record.

If you’re receiving State Pension, the Department for Work and Pensions, or the Department for Communities if you’re in Northern Ireland, will review your State Pension award. Your State Pension may increase. You don’t need to contact them.

If your State Pension increases, it could affect the amount of tax you pay or benefits you’re entitled to.

If you’re not yet at State Pension age, we’ll update your State Pension forecast.

How Home Responsibilities Protection could affect your State Pension

The amount of State Pension you receive is based on your National Insurance record and the number of ‘qualifying years’ you have.

If you claimed Child Benefit before May 2000 and didn’t provide your National Insurance number on the claim, your National Insurance record may not show the correct number of qualifying years of HRP. This may affect your State Pension entitlement.

For more information, go to GOV.UK and search ‘Home Responsibilities Protection’.

Protect yourself and your information

Never share your HMRC login details. Someone using them could steal from you or make a fraudulent claim in your name.

If someone contacts you saying they’re from HMRC and wants you to transfer money urgently or give personal information, never let yourself be rushed. Take your time and check HMRC’s advice about scams on GOV.UK.

If you want to check that a letter you’ve received from HMRC is genuine, go to GOV.UK and search ‘check that an HMRC letter is genuine’.

If you contact us, we can deal with your query more quickly if you quote your National Insurance number and give us your contact details. You can find your National Insurance number at the top of this letter.

Yours sincerely

Officer of HM Revenue and Customs

Question 11

Appendix C: Achieved Sample

Accepted Answer

Term	Definition
Attendance Allowance (AA)	A tax-free, non-means tested benefit for people of State Pension age or over, who need help with personal care or supervision because of an illness or disability.
Child Benefit	A tax-free payment up to specified income levels made to parents or other people responsible for a child’s upbringing.
Disability Living Allowance (DLA)	A tax-free, non-means tested benefit for people with disabilities who need help with mobility or care costs.
Family Allowance	A benefit for families with two or more children. It was replaced by Child Benefit from 1977 onwards.
Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP)	A scheme which ran between 1978-2010 to help protect parents’ and carers’ State Pension. HRP was available to those who were claiming Child Benefit for a child under 16 and those claiming Income Support if they were looking after a sick or disabled person and were not available for work.
Legal Entitlements and Administrative Practice (LEAP)	A LEAP comprises any situation where a systemic or systematic error on the part of a Government Department has been identified, and this error could have deprived individuals of their legal entitlements.
Reduced rate National Insurance for married women (Married Women’s Stamp)	Until April 1977, married women could opt-in to a scheme to pay a reduced rate of National Insurance. Some of those who opted to pay the reduced rate by 1977 continued in the scheme after it ended. Paying the reduced rate of National Insurance affected eligibility for State Pension and other benefits.
National Insurance Number (NiNO)	A unique number for individuals used in the UK to manage the National Insurance (NI) system.
National Insurance Record	A record of all the National Insurance Contributions a person has paid and all the National Insurance Credits they have received.
Pension Credit	A means-tested benefit for people over State Pension age who have a low income.
State Pension	A regular pension payment from the government most people can claim when they reach State Pension age. The amount a person receives in State Pension depends on their age and their National Insurance Record.
Widowed Mother’s Allowance (WMA)	A benefit paid to widows of working age with children. It was replaced by the Widowed Parent’s Allowance (WPA) in 2001. The amount paid was based on the deceased husband’s National Insurance contributions and included their entitlement to State Pension.
Winter Fuel Payment	A tax-free, non-contributory annual payment to help older people meet the costs of heating their homes in winter. Payments are made to pensioner householders in England and Wales with someone receiving Pension Credit or certain other income-related benefits.

Question 12

Appendix D: Research topic guide

Accepted Answer

C111003675 DWP Low take-up of missing Home Responsibilities Protection

Background for moderators

Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) was a scheme to help protect parents’ and carers’ State Pension between 1978 and 2010. Some people may have HRP missing from their National Insurance records which could affect their State Pension. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) are working together to find people affected and correct their records, so they receive the correct amount of State Pension.

The amount of State Pension someone gets is based on their National Insurance record and the number of ‘qualifying years’ they have. If someone first claimed Child Benefit (previously known as Family Allowance) before May 2000 and did not provide their National Insurance Number on the claim, their National Insurance record may not show the correct number of qualifying years, and this may affect their State Pension entitlement. HRP reduced the number of qualifying years you needed to get the full basic State Pension. HRP was replaced by National Insurance credits in 2010. Women currently in their 60s and 70s are most likely to be affected.

There are no longer records available for everyone who may be eligible for missing HRP. This is because Child Benefit records are deleted 5 years after the claim ends, for data protection. HMRC is using National Insurance records to identify as many people as possible who:

might have been entitled to HRP between 1978 and 2010
have no HRP on their National Insurance record

From Autum 2023, HMRC has been writing to people who meet these criteria, inviting them to read eligibility guidance and use an online tool to find out if they are eligible to claim. If they are eligible, they can claim online. Once the application is processed, HMRC will update their National Insurance record.

DWP will:

process any State Pension changes
pay any arrears due and increase ongoing awards if appropriate

DWP will tell HMRC when they have recalculated the State Pension entitlement. A change in income could affect the amount of tax someone pays or the benefits someone is entitled to, including Pension Credit. HMRC will collect any Income Tax (payable from gross annual income of £12,570), due on an increase in State Pension and on any arrears paid.

Key research questions for moderators

This research aims to understand why individuals are not applying for missing Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) and the barriers associated with this.

Within this, the interviews will explore a range of issues, including:

participant background and circumstances
recall of receiving communications on HRP
understanding and perceptions of HRP
response to receiving communications
barriers to making a claim and reasons underpinning these
suggestions for what can help overcome barriers and support take-up

Moderator information:

Please note, this guide is not a script and is intended to be used flexibly, with participant responses guiding the flow of the conversation, topics covered in the order that they naturally arise, and probes used only when needed.

1. Introduction (3 minutes)

Note to moderator: Introduce research, reassure about confidentiality and set tone of discussion

Moderator: be mindful that the age of the research audience means that they may be more likely to experience fluctuating consent. Assume the participant can consent but do not rely on recruitment as evidence of this. If you are unsure if they are providing informed consent, check with questions e.g. How was this interview explained to you? Do you have any concerns about the call today?

Warm up and introduction

Introduce moderator – working on behalf of Verian, an independent social research company
Research is being undertaken on behalf of DWP
Aim of the discussion is to understand the reasons people are not applying for missing HRP, despite having been sent a letter by HMRC informing them that they may be eligible for it. Interview length – up to 30-45 minutes
Research is voluntary, confidential and anonymous – we will not share your name / details with DWP or anyone else; your name will not be used in the reporting for this project; participation will not affect your relationship with DWP
No right or wrong answers – reassure that we are not assessing individuals but looking at the service in general and how it is organised
Information will be used for research purposes only. More information about Verian’s privacy policy
Any questions?

Recording and transcription

Ask participant for permission to record the interview, then start recording and confirm consent

2. Background (5 minutes)

Note to moderator: To understand the participant’s background and circumstances. Information collected here will provide context for the rest of the interview. We have incorporated themes from the COM-B behavioural framework.

Moderator: To start off, ask them to tell you about themselves

Family and home life – who else lives with them, how do they spend their time
Retirement/work – are they retired, or do they work; when did they retire
Income – what different types of income do they have. Probe around:
- State Pension
- Private / Occupational Pension
- Employment or self-employment
- Other
Benefits – do they receive any benefits. Note to moderator – refer to profile. If participant is flagged as receiving benefits, probe to find out which ones:
- Pension Credit
- Attendance Allowance
- Carer’s Allowance
- Housing Benefit
- Universal Credit (if a mixed age household?)
- Other
Digital capability – how confident do they feel with using the internet for tasks like emailing, searching for information online, online banking, and filling out online forms - reasons for this
Any changes in their lives recently – probe sensitively to understand any changes over the past year which could affect their response to the letter

3. Recall of receiving HMRC letter on HRP (5-10 minutes)

Note to moderator: This section focuses on recall of the letter informing them that they may have missed State Pension because of missing HRP, and what, if anything they did in response to the letter.

Please look at information in the profile on date the letter was sent, recall/actions in response to the letter and prompt with it as needed.

Moderator: Now I’d like to talk to you about a letter which HMRC sent you about Home Responsibilities Protection

Initial recall – explore if they remember receiving the letter; how clearly

Moderator: explain that the letter would have been sent between around x date [refer to sample], was from HMRC and was titled ‘You may be eligible for Home Responsibilities Protection’

If no:

Potential reasons for not receiving letter – whether moved house in the past few years - probe sensitively for any other reasons
General handling of post – describe how they normally deal with post; do they have any challenges with this; do they treat official looking letters differently; does anyone support them with managing this – provide examples

If yes:

Timing – do they remember roughly when they received the letter
Format – what did it look like; can they remember the envelope or the letter
Tone – what tone did the letter have
Action – what did they do with the letter when it arrived – probe: read immediately, left it for another time; skim read it; other
Content:
- in their own words, what did the letter say
- what, if anything, was it telling them to do
- how easy or difficult was it to understand; reasons for this
- anything that was unclear; provide examples
Reactions – how did they feel about receiving the letter – probe: surprised; concerned; indifferent; did they think the letter was genuine
Any other responses to the letter

4. Actions and reasons for not applying or not responding to the letter (10 min)

Do not cover this section with participants who said they did not receive the letter.

Note to moderator: This section focusses in more depth on any actions taken after receiving the letter and identifying reasons for non-response. Issues may already have been raised; this is an opportunity to explore in greater depth.

Using a behavioural framework, the reasons covered below aim to explore the range of capability, opportunity and motivation factors that led to non-response.

Moderator: I would now like to talk to you in more detail about the decision and actions you took after receiving the letter

Explore spontaneously what they did after receiving the letter – probe:
Actions: what did they do after receiving the letter
- Information – did they look for any further information; where and what did they find out; explore impact on their decision
- Contact with HMRC – did they contact or attempt to contact HMRC; if so, how and what was the outcome; explore any impact on their decision
- Support – did they talk to anyone else about the letter; who; what did they say; explore any impact on their decision

My understanding is that you have not applied for Home Responsibilities Protection, is that correct? Explore the following:

Decision making – can they recall actively deciding not to apply for HRP; when; reasons for this
Eligibility – do they think they are eligible for HRP; what makes them think this
Planned applications – do they plan to apply for HRP at some point; when; what were their reasons for delaying
Abandoned applications – did they start an application and then stop; when was this; what were their reasons for not completing the application; did they seek information or support; what did they need to complete the application
Reasons for not applying – spontaneously explore reasons for not applying for HRP in depth and probe on following as needed:
- Awareness/ understanding: whether they read the letter and understood what it meant and what they needed to do; any information missing; any difficulties understanding any aspect of the letter
- Relevance: whether they thought it was relevant to them; their interest in HRP and how it might affect them; how relevance could be improved
- Eligibility: if they think they are eligible, why they did not apply
Application barriers: explore any issues knowing how to apply for HRP; explore access to information to prove eligibility; explore access and skills with doing things online; anything needed to support them
Trust: did they trust/distrust the letter; reasons for this; how could they have been reassured
Expectations: how worthwhile did they think it might be to apply; what did they expect might happen
Concerns about impact: did they have concerns about the potential impact of applying for HRP; what concerns did they have
For those claiming other benefits – what is their understanding of how HRP affects other benefits; what impact did this have on their decision to apply – provide examples

5. Awareness and understanding of HRP (5 minutes)

Note to moderator: This section briefly explores awareness and understanding of Home Responsibilities Protection to understand what participants know about it and to further understand whether lack of awareness was a barrier to responding to the letter.

Moderator: I’d now like to discuss Home Responsibilities Protection in more detail

Awareness of HRP – explore whether they had heard of Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) before this interview; when and how had they heard about it – probe: letter from HMRC; through this research; media; other
In their own words, what is Home Responsibilities Protection

Moderator – read out: Home Responsibilities Protection was a scheme to help protect parents’ and carers’ State Pension. You would have received Home Responsibilities Protection if between 1978 and 2010 you were claiming Child Benefit (previously known as Family Allowance) for a child under 16

Understanding - does this make sense to them; is this information new to them; does it match their understanding; any aspects unclear
Relevance - based on this, do they think they are eligible for HRP; does it change their view on whether they should apply; reasons
Impact - what impact do they think applying for HRP might have on their State Pension; what about on other benefits (if relevant)
Concerns - would they have any concerns about applying for HRP – provide examples, for example, information needed to prove eligibility.

6. Suggestions for overcoming barriers (5 minutes)

Note to moderator: This section briefly covers information, and support needs to enable people to apply for HRP. Note this may have been covered in earlier sections, but ensures we reflect and do not miss any relevant suggestions.

Moderator: We are coming to the end of our discussion now, but I would like to spend a few minutes discussing what could help people to make a claim for Home Responsibilities Protection

What do you think is the main barrier to claiming HRP for you and others
How do you think those barriers could be overcome; how could people be encouraged to make a claim for HRP - probe:
- Letter – thinking about the letter HMRC sent, what changes would they suggest making to it; how would these have changed the way they responded – provide examples
- Information/questions – explore any information needed at the time of receiving the letter; any information they needed to make a decision or apply for HRP – provide examples
- Support – is there any support which would have helped them with decision-making or in making an application – provide examples
- Sources – where would they ideally like to get information or support from – reasons for this

7. Final reflections and close (2 minutes)

Note to moderator: Thank you and close

Based on our conversation today, do you feel differently about applying for Home Responsibilities Protection?

Any final thoughts
Offer support information if conversation brought up distressing topics
If asked - signpost to how they can make a claim for HRP (as below)

Whilst we are unable to help you to apply for Home Responsibilities Protection on today’s call you can find more information and advice by phoning HMRC on 0300 200 3500 or visit www.GOV.UK and search “Home Responsibilities Protection”.

Thanks and close

Demographic	Target	Recruited	Achieved (Booked + Completed)
Total – Depths	40	40	40
Primary quotas – Letter recall receiving a letter: Yes	30 to 40	31	31
Primary quotas – Letter recall receiving a letter: No	Max 10	9	9
Benefits other than SP (record from sample): Yes	Mix	8	8
Benefits other than SP (record from sample): No	Mix	32	32
IRO PC (record from sample): Yes	Record	4	4
IRO PC (record from sample): No	Record	36	36
Age: 66 to 75	Mix	18	18
Age: 76 to 85	Mix	21	21
Age: 86+	Mix	1	1
Secondary quotas – Gender (record from sample): Male	Mix	0	0
Secondary quotas – Gender (record from sample): Female	Mix	40	40
Region: England	Mix	34	34
Region: Scotland	Mix	2	2
Region: Wales	Mix	4	4

Cookies on GOV.UK

Executive summary

Key findings

1. Participant profiles, key behaviours and attitudes

2. Awareness and understanding of Home Responsibilities Protection

3. Expectations and concerns about applying

4. Actions taken in response to the letter

Conclusions

Glossary of terms

Chapter 1: Research background and methodology

Policy background

Research aims and objectives

Research methodology

Sample and recruitment

Analysis of data

Purpose of this research and limitations

DWP research on HRP

Chapter 2: Participant backgrounds

Participant circumstances

Handling of post

Digital Capability

Support networks

Participant attitudes

Concerns about scams

Views on State Pension

Attitudes to government

Chapter 3: Awareness and understanding of Home Responsibilities Protection

Receipt and recall of the letter

Engagement with the letter

Assuming the letter was a scam

Assuming the letter was not relevant to them

Understanding of Home Responsibilities Protection

Understanding the term ‘Home Responsibilities Protection’

Understanding of the key messages of the letter

Summary of key barriers

Barrier 1: Non-receipt of the HRP letter

Barrier 2: Assuming the letter was a scam

Barrier 3: Assuming the letter was not relevant

Barrier 4: Lack of understanding of the letter

Chapter 4: Expectations and concerns about applying

Expectations about positive outcomes

Concerns about the impact of applying

Fear of scams

Financial Impact

Engaging with government

Making an application

Summary of key barriers

Barrier 5: Positive impacts are unclear

Barrier 6: Perceived risks outweigh perceived benefits

Chapter 5: Actions taken in response to the letter

Personal assessments of eligibility

Sources of Information and support with understanding and checking eligibility

Use of the online eligibility check tool

Experiences of contacting HMRC about HRP

Summary of key barriers

Barrier 7: Incorrect assessments about eligibility

Barrier 8: Reliance on family members to take action

Barrier 9: Digital by default application process

Chapter 6: Conclusions

Appendix A: Research on low take-up for missing Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) amongst a group contacted by DWP/HMRC

Key Findings Summary

Background

Key characteristics

Main Findings

Understanding and awareness of HRP was poor

Recalling communications from DWP and/or HMRC regarding HRP

Reasons for not applying or starting an application and not finishing it

Additional Support Needs

Appendix B: HRP letter wording

You may be eligible for Home Responsibilities Protection

How to check if you were eligible

If your claim is successful

How Home Responsibilities Protection could affect your State Pension

Protect yourself and your information

Appendix C: Achieved Sample

Appendix D: Research topic guide

C111003675 DWP Low take-up of missing Home Responsibilities Protection

Background for moderators

Key research questions for moderators

Moderator information: