The necessity of an explanation before acceptance of a MR request

For the purpose of the original post, the issue isn’t even about evidence or information gathering “in order to consider all the issues raised by an application” as the application either hasn’t even been made or accepted so reg 3 isn’t in play at this stage.  This is purely an administrative block on the adjudication process whereby guidance is given to junior civil servants who are not necessarily familiar with the law who then believe that guidance to have the full force of law.  So the proposition becomes “as a matter of law you are not allowed to lodge a legal challenge to one of our decisions until we have spoken to you on the phone and explained the decision to you”. 

Whether this is a matter of some duplicity or incompetence is largely beside the point.  The problem is in the nature of civil service functioning and how hierarchies operate.  Government ministers, by and large, don’t micro manage policy.  That is done through interpretation of the policy down through the civil service in the form of Chinese whispers.  It’s like the old joke told about a message sent down the trenches in World War One.  The message starts out as “send re-enforcements we’re going to advance” and ends up as “send three and four pence we’re going to a dance”. 

Of course I agree Paul.  I made the point that the legal basis for the DWP taking it upon themselves to provide an unsolicited verbal explanation was dubious.  And that such explanation was not authorised by Reg 3(2).  I was, however, also concerned that it might be a waste of our time trying to challenge an explanation being given in a call back if the Dept could, admittedly after the revision request is made, delay matters anyway by using the further info/evidence provision (Rosie had referred to their guidance which seemed, effectively, a two for the price of one with request for info and explanation being done in the same call).  In one sense, it’s probably better, if Reg 3(2) is going to be used by the DWP in most MRs, to get the call out of the way as early in the process as possible including before the revision is even made.  However, I was also trying to make the point that we could perhaps side step Reg 3(2) by basing our MR on official error.  That would then expose the Dwp offer of a verbal explanation for exactly what you say it is.  Such offer is arguably not even a fetter as, unlike, the power to request further info, it appears there’s no discretion to verbally offer reasons in the absence of a client request.

Edit: Yes, Chinese whispers is an excellent description of the DWP’s approach to training and development of staff.  The WWI example made me laugh too.

Paul, I put your allegation to the head of the DWP yesterday who passed it to a minnow in the press office.  I got this terse response today: “We categorically deny that our policy is based on the Careless Whisper”.

Or any other chocolate bars for that matter.

Tom H - 31 March 2014 12:26 PM

Edit: Yes, Chinese whispers is an excellent description of the DWP’s approach to training and development of staff.  The WWI example made me laugh too.

I had these “Chinese whispers” explained to me by someone who worked at Quarry House in teh context of the Mortgage Interest Relief shambles a few years back by one of the guidance writers.

There are essentially two teams at DWP, the people who write the regulations and the people who implement them. There is a total disconnect between the two; one team’s in London and one’s in Leeds.

Hence you can get London stating “x is our policy intention” and Leeds interpreting it in a very different way.