The sufficiency of MR Notices

I am looking at an MR notice in relation to an ESA claim. Most of it is a diary of who attended what medical when and when the decision was reviewed etc. I relation to Reg 34(2), the MR Notice writer (the DM) assures the claimant that the HP would have considered that aspect of the evidence, and the DM concludes “the available evidence does not indicate that the HP has not appropriately documented or given consideration to your health problems”. We are not told what exact evidence they mean, nor how it was weighed. In relation to Reg 29, the DM only says “I do not consider that any exceptional circumstances apply to you”.

How is a reasonable claimant to know that the MR has been done properly, when the MR Notice simply asserts a lack of entitlement? We know that case law says that Tribunals are supposed to make findings of fact, then reason them, and then decide and so on. Shouldn’t such standards also apply to DMs when drafting the MR Notice?

What I am coming round to is, what are the proper standards by which an MR Notice should be judged? I could not at first glance locate anything in the rules that spells this out. Does it run on the same track as the expected standards for ‘written reasons’? Any help greatly appreciated, and as usual, apologies if this has all been discussed and put to bed previously!

There is a statutory duty to give reasons for the original SS Act s8 decision but how detailed those reasons need to be is a matter of debate.  DM’s are certainly not held to the same standard as tribunal judges and for good reason.  An appeal lies against the DM’s decision on the facts.  Inadequate or irrational reasons will make it easier to pick the decision apart at a tribunal.  For tribunal decisions there is no further right of appeal on the facts and there is also a need for judicial finality.  An appellant has a right to fairness in facing that finality so he has a right to know why his case has failed and so has a right to a proper explanation.  In this regard tribunal judges are also not obliged to deal with every point raised either. This kind of sloppiness or lack of thoroughness by DM’s happens all the time.  Take it as a point on appeal.

All points noted - thank you. Tony, you are doubtless correct about my over extended expectations! I need to get out more. Nevip’s comment regarding differing standards for the DM and Tribunal also make painful sense. I was hoping that the sort of standards required of Tribunals in terms of written reasons, should really also apply to DMs. For example, in CDLA/2235/2009:

“...in order to be adequate, a statement of reasons must not only explain why the tribunal reached a particular conclusion; it must show whether in reaching it they applied the law correctly.”

Without disagreeing with the above mentioned responses, what is the point of the MR process if it does not help the claimant understand why, in the context of the relevant legal test, their claim has failed? A statement of failure (as described in my initial post) falls very short by that standard. One would have thought that by doing this properly, more appeals might be avoided, but there you go. Buying an extra 14 days to get proper written reasons might be even more important now, given the lack of challenge on a decision to refuse a late MR.