Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Evidence to end the MR?
Looking at the published figures for MR – there is ( I fink) a 1 in 10 chance of an MR being successful for ESA.
(I’m sure it will be even less for PIP due to the ATOS Manager points management quality review management process.)
The published evidence shows that the process is pointless and can only be seen as a process to delay/thwart justice, particularly when viewing the appeal ‘success’ rate.
The stated aim at the introduction of the MR was to improve decision making….........
“Currently, a claimant can ask for a decision to be reconsidered by a decision-maker, and this process may result in a revised decision. In practice, however, many people do not do so and instead make an appeal from the outset. This is more costly for the taxpayer, is time-consuming, stressful for claimants and their families, and, for a significant number of appellants—some 40% of all appellants are successful—unnecessary. I say this because this success is on the back of new evidence presented at the tribunal.
We need a process that enables this evidence to be seen or heard by the decision-maker at the earliest opportunity. It is accepted that this will not mean that all decisions will be changed and appeals will be unnecessary, but we should at least have a process that allows this to happen. Mandatory reconsideration does just that. It will mean that applying for a revision will become a necessary step in the process, before claimants decide if they still wish to appeal.
Importantly, another DWP decision-maker will review the original decision, requesting extra information or evidence as required via a telephone discussion. If appropriate, they will then correct the decision. When this happens, there will be no need for an appeal—an outcome that will be better for the individual and better for the department. Claimants will of course be able to appeal to the tribunal if they still disagree with the decision, which will be set out in a letter detailing the outcome of the reconsideration and the reasons for it. We hope that because of the robust nature of the reconsideration and the improved communication that our reforms will result in, some claimants will decide that they do not need to pursue an appeal.” Lord Freud
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/130213-0003.htm
The evidence shows that the policy has failed and has become another piece of pointless bureaucratic nonsense.
The only logical conclusion is to remove the MR process and save money in;
telephone calls/contacts,
time spent entering and chasing data,
scanning post
and then more importantly - the human cost that goes with it.
It was never about improved decision making, it was, and still is, a blunt-edged means to thwart claimants’ attempts to get erroneous and egregious decisions overturned.
It was never about improved decision making, it was, and still is, a blunt-edged means to thwart claimants’ attempts to get erroneous and egregious decisions overturned.
Have you got the published statements to back that up?
It was never about improved decision making, it was, and still is, a blunt-edged means to thwart claimants’ attempts to get erroneous and egregious decisions overturned.
Have you got the published statements to back that up?
8 pages and 217 threads and counting…
It was never about improved decision making, it was, and still is, a blunt-edged means to thwart claimants’ attempts to get erroneous and egregious decisions overturned.
Have you got the published statements to back that up?
8 pages and 217 threads and counting…
I think the government would find their own evidence more compelling.
I think the government would find their own evidence more compelling.
What? The evidence that you’ve claimed above that shows that it makes no difference whatsoever and merely delays and obfuscates decision making processes?
I think the government would find their own evidence more compelling.
What? The evidence that you’ve claimed above that shows that it makes no difference whatsoever and merely delays and obfuscates decision making processes?
I think you’ve managed to get the point - I’m sorry if I made it difficult.
?