Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
MR recorded as “further evidence” - has it happened to your client?
I am just trying to gauge whether my clients are particularly unlucky or is this a wider problem.
3 separate clients over last few months had their MR registered on the DWP system as “further evidence” rather than MR.
In each case (because I drafted the letters for clients) there was a large heading in capital letters stating “Mandatory Reconsideration Request”.
As a result of having NOT been recorded as MR, these letters elicited no action from the DWP.
So now I am not only advising clients to send letters by recorded delivery but also to call PIP 2-3 weeks later to check if their MR was indeed registered as MR.
My last client waited 20 weeks before we found out that nonsense.
So has it happened to you? Perhaps you should ask your clients to check…
(I am posting it here because the MRs were about PIP- but maybe its happening with other benefits too?
If only with PIP- then its another evidence of things not being well in the PIPland)
This did happen to me a while ago. As a result I now always use the CRMR1 form, accompanied by a detailed submission if appropriate. PIP now seem to send a txt or a letter telling clients when they are likely to make a decision by, so if a client doesn’t get one of those after a few weeks they ought to check.
Hi Jo. My understanding for several years has been that MR requests to PIP by post get filed as ‘white mail’ and nothing happens to them unless a phone call prompts someone to find it and recognise it for what it is. Consequently I have always advised MR requests by phone, followed up in writing if necessary. This seems to work, I presume because the DM will search the white mail when s/he is given the MR request to deal with. I have never used their MR form so can’t add to what Paul says about that.
Hi BCD, I must say I have never had to chase up the MR letter with a call, simply in order to make sure it is registered as MR. I have been submitting MRs since they were invented by DWP and normally it works as intended. So I got a bit alarmed recently by this whole “white mail” business. Don’t they read capital letters which say “MANDATORY RECONSIDERATION REQUEST”? I always taught that I could send an appeal or a complaint on a table napkin, and as long as I make it clear what I want, it should be treated as such.
I didn’t think they would be THAT idiotic!
Raises questions though for an MR I have been trying to get registered for the past year which keeps getting ignored!!
I’ve also had experience of numerous MR requests going astray, despite being logged on the DWP system. I had a habit of phoning a few weeks after sending to ensure it had been logged appropriately. Never happened again after I included a completed CRMR1 form with every request.
We all know that an MR request should be processed without the need to use a specific channel or form of words, but I agree with Paul - the form seems to get past all these roadblocks.
It’s happened to our clients as well - PIP and Income Support.
Is it true that UC MRs sent by post are put into a warehouse full of mice?
Is it true that UC MRs sent by post are put into a warehouse full of mice?
I think I’d trust the mice with the MRs more than some of the decision makers
Hi BCD, I must say I have never had to chase up the MR letter with a call, simply in order to make sure it is registered as MR. I have been submitting MRs since they were invented by DWP and normally it works as intended. So I got a bit alarmed recently by this whole “white mail” business. Don’t they read capital letters which say “MANDATORY RECONSIDERATION REQUEST”? I always taught that I could send an appeal or a complaint on a table napkin, and as long as I make it clear what I want, it should be treated as such.
Jo, you’re assuming the latest crop of DWP recruits can actually read. Given the standard of some of their recent communications, I would suggest that it’s not a given.