MR - months of delay then MR ‘withdrawn’ after UC call client

Claimant sanctioned, possibly multiply.

We request MR on 6/4/16. We are told that the request has gone to a DM.

Letter to UC August 2016 requesting update – no reply.

And again in December 2016 – no reply.

Formal complaint Feb 17 concerning no reply to correspondence.

March 17 – message from UC to say that client was offered an MR by phone but he didn’t want to pursue it

Spoke to claimant – he did not realise he could get money back if successful, and prevent escalation.

New letter to UC March 2017 – no reply

Follow-up letter April – no reply

New sanction imposed – details requested – no reply

Formal written complaint made today about the whole bally lot.

This is not just a matter of excessive delay; the claimant was apparently talked out of pursuing his MR - and we were kept out of it. As we sent a formal written MR, I do not think UC are entitled to behave in this way.
Thoughts?

I just wonder whether the law actually allows a revision or MR request to be withdrawn.

A claim can be withdrawn if it has not yet been determined, (reg 31 UC C&P regs). 

An appeal can be withdrawn (Rule 17 FTT procedure Rules). 

A defective revision application must still be determined, even if people fail to provide additional evidence and info (reg 20 UC D & A Regs). 

Reg 7 UC D & A Regs is silent on the question of withdrawal as is The Social Security Act 1998.  Therefore, I think there is no power which enables DWP to treat an MR as withdrawn.  They must make a decision on it either way. 

Other legislation allows explicitly for withdrawal of a claim or appeal, and I think similar legislation is needed to allow for withdrawal of a revision or MR application.

This of course would not just apply to UC. 

What do others think?

Interesting question. It crossed my mind and I suspect you’re right. Persuading them could be a whole other world of pain though.

A person’s right of appeal exists in primary legislation (under s12 of the 1998 Act).  The exercise of that right is now dependent (under secondary legislation) on the SoS having first considered whether to revise the original decision.  In my view, once requested to do so the SoS must consider the matter and notify the claimant of the results of his consideration, one way or the other.  Not to do so would deny the claimant his appeal rights under primary legislation and thus frustrate the will of Parliament. The power delegated to the SoS does not extend to him the power to just do nothing and sit on his hands unless there is an express right for the claimant to withdraw the revision request.  Even then, such a right would have to be carefully drawn to avoid abuse.

Possible ways to ensure an MR is not treated as withdrawn:

1. Formal complaint and involvement of local MP. And

2.  Credible threat to injuct the DWP for breach of duty.