× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Work capability issues and ESA  →  Thread

Decision makers statement

davidsmith
forum member

Welfare Rights, Brighton Unemployed Centre Families Project

Send message

Total Posts: 19

Joined: 21 May 2015

Does anyone know

Is there such a thing as a decision makers statement, a report of sorts that decision makers have to file each time they make a decision that would perhaps show some more light on the inner workings of decisions aside from the end result letters

?

Benny Fitzpatrick
forum member

Welfare Rights Officer, Southway Housing Trust, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 627

Joined: 2 June 2015

“Secretary of State’s Response” in an appeal submission is usually the only way to actually see a written rationale (term used loosely!) for decisions.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

I tend to work on the basis that there are rarely anything resembling “inner workings” when it comes to decision making. The time spent worrying about such things is better spent throwing a challenge against the wall to see what sticks.

If I want to know the rationale for a decision I’ll get it to an appeal tribunal and watch a generally garbled template submission fall to pieces.

Edmund Shepherd
forum member

Tenancy Income, Royal Borough of Greenwich, London

Send message

Total Posts: 508

Joined: 4 December 2013

Occasionally, I come across a print-screen from one or another piece of departmental software. There’s rarely anything revealing there. It’s pretty neutral and stock phrases tend to be used, although it may be better than what finds its way onto the decision letter.

I agree that rather than guessing what the DM was thinking, to decide for yourself what’s true and challenge the DM’s findings on this basis. After all, if s/he has concluded something without giving the “real” reasons and your conclusions are more inherently probable, the tribunal should go with the conclusion that is better supported by the facts.