Sanction - claimant drops MR request after call from UC, adviser kept out of it

We sent in an MR for the claimant in April 2016 - no response after the end of April, at which time we were told the case had gone to a DM.

Chase letter August 2016 - no response.

Chase letter December 2016 - no response.

Chase letter February 2017….

...at which point I receive a phone message from UC, saying that they phoned the claimant in Feb 2017, and that he did not want to pursue the MR.

I have complained in my usual angry terms about this - they take the best part of a year to address the case, cut the adviser out, call the client direct and suddenly they get out of having to do an MR!

He only told UC not to pursue the case as the sanction was long-since spent and he thought it was no use going on with the challenge. He was not disabused of this by whoever called him and did not know about they way that sanctions escalate.

I can’t say for sure that UC talked him in to dropping the MR - but everything else about the case is simply appalling.

Hi Andrew,

Now that your claimant is aware of the implications of withdrawing the MR request, do they want to re-instate it?

I’ve had some success in the past (not had to do it much thankfully) of writing to DWP outlining the history and asking for the MR to be re-opened because the claimant made a decision based on only limited information.  Opens the door to a complaint if they refuse too.

Mairi

Hi - yes, in this case the claimant did not realise the consequences of withdrawal, but has authorised me to take the matter up with DWP. I am very cross about the unwarranted delay in dealing with the MR, and the apparent cheerful acceptance of a withdrawal from a claimant who did not have sufficient information. I still hesitate to say ‘misled’.......

Awfully difficult to see any reasonable basis for needing a claimant to ‘pursue’ an MR 10 months after it was requested. There are shades of the tax credits office here.

Appeal rights may still immediately arise, since there was an application to revise, and it seems likely that at some point revision must have been ‘considered’ by the SoS.