Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Another MR bad practice thread
forum member
Benefits adviser - Isle of Wight CAB
Total Posts: 509
Joined: 4 March 2011
I didn’t bump the old thread as it is now quite old.
Yesterday I read some appeal papers containing a disturbing record of an MR phone call to the client.
On being told that the MR would fail, my client was asked whether she would be ‘happy to withdraw her MR request after being reassured about the work related activity she would be expected to do’. Fortunately, she was not happy to do this.
The summary of the work-related activity in the papers does not match what she’s already being expected to do.
forum member
Money Adviser, Thirteen, Middlesbrough
Total Posts: 345
Joined: 12 July 2012
I am also seeing listed as ‘work-related activity’ things such as ‘attend ongoing doctor’s appointments’, ‘engage with counselling from Mind’ (which the client had arranged herself).
These are not ‘work-related activities’ said I to the work coach, they are medical care, they are to do with the client’s fundamental wellbeing and health.
Oh but they are said the work coach, as this is the first step towards work.
No, they are an end in themselves, they have intrinsic value to the person’s life, and you cant ‘mandate’ them and make them ‘compulsory’ by putting them in the claimant commitment I said.
Yes I can and I have, said he, here is your photocopy.
He had also put ‘attend appointments with money advice service’ in as an item of work-related activity ... ie appointments with me. Even though one of the aims of our appointments is to win an ESA SG appeal….....
This is surreal and Kafkaesque .... but there is a serious point.
How can health related activities be counted as work-related activities ... when they are entirely independent of the DWP and its contractors, and within an entirely separate ethical realm of the NHS and its contractors?
forum member
Money Adviser, Thirteen, Middlesbrough
Total Posts: 345
Joined: 12 July 2012
Sorry Mr Finch, this is not MR bad practice ... it is UC claimant commitment / Jobcentre bad practice .... shall I move this elsewhere ?
forum member
Information and advice resources - Age UK
Total Posts: 3211
Joined: 7 January 2016
Friend of mine was put into WRAG late last year and sought MR to get back into support group - she’s finally had the decision, some 10 months later to agree to this.
In the meantime, I just found out that one of the work-related activities her work coach agreed to in the interim in her WFI was attending hospital appointments. Utterly ridiculous box-ticking and as noted, of no value whatsoever in terms of the legislation that apparently governs WRA (other than, I suppose, meaning they don’t get sent on some pointless “lets build a lollipop out of silver foil and lick ourselves into work” session).
forum member
Money Adviser, Thirteen, Middlesbrough
Total Posts: 345
Joined: 12 July 2012
Similarly, Paul, I ended up ‘compromising’ rather than making a fuss on principled/ethical/legal stance .... because actually it got my client out of doing other activities, while we went to appeal.
But ... what would happen if she were to lapse in her medical treatment (high risk) .... risk of sanction.
Very uncomfortable territory.
forum member
Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council
Total Posts: 1964
Joined: 12 October 2012
I am starting to encounter (once again) cases of claimants being told they cannot request MR if they do not present new evidence. Sigh.
forum member
Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service
Total Posts: 3138
Joined: 17 June 2010
Bizarre as it sounds this ludicrous box ticking may actually perversely be a positive as it represents a gentle withdrawal from the sort of stuff that people get sanctioned for. Whilst I agree none of it is WRA it’s also not stuff they will necessarily be able to check on. I suspect that, idiotic as it is, it’s the start of sanctions quietly taking a back seat. We shall see.
forum member
Information and advice resources - Age UK
Total Posts: 3211
Joined: 7 January 2016
Mike Hughes - 27 October 2016 04:29 PMBizarre as it sounds this ludicrous box ticking may actually perversely be a positive as it represents a gentle withdrawal from the sort of stuff that people get sanctioned for. Whilst I agree none of it is WRA it’s also not stuff they will necessarily be able to check on. I suspect that, idiotic as it is, it’s the start of sanctions quietly taking a back seat. We shall see.
One could view it through that prism but what happens if it comes to light that someone missed their hospital appointment? Would that attract a sanction?
Given the previous attempts to make benefit payments conditional on accessing medical treatments and similar for people with drug and alcohol problems and people with obesity, I’m actually slightly more concerned that this is an insidious move to enforce that kind of principle by the back door.
forum member
Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council
Total Posts: 2262
Joined: 15 October 2012
First time I’ve had to think about this as all (well most) of mine are in the Support Group, does a Claimant Commitment carry appeal rights as an Action Plan would?
forum member
Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service
Total Posts: 3138
Joined: 17 June 2010
I think it does but it’s generally more fruitful to lodge a complaint/letter before action re: EA 10 and threaten JR.
forum member
The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale
Total Posts: 1366
Joined: 22 July 2013
A Claimant Commitment in UC is not in itself MRable/appealable to HMCTS although you can ask the Jobcentre to review it at any time and it has to look at it. You have to comply with the existing CC whilst the review is taking place.
However, a couple of riders to this. A refusal to accept a Claimant Commitment will lead to a refusal of benefit and therefore an outcome decision that can be appealed. Obviously this is not an advisable course of action as you will receive no benefit pending appeal determination.
Sanctions, etc., do not flow from failure to comply with your CC but failure to comply with the requirements it records. In that sense it may be possible to argue at appeal that the CC may not have properly taken into account health issues, temporary circumstances, etc. and was therefore unreasonable.
At the CPAG training I attended recently, Martin & Simon stated that the principles in CJSA/1814/2007 probably translate into UC as well as JSA.
File Attachments
- actively_seeking_work_CJSA_1814_2007-00.doc (File Size: 46KB - Downloads: 488)
forum member
Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council
Total Posts: 2262
Joined: 15 October 2012
Paul_Treloar_AgeUK - 27 October 2016 04:34 PMwhat happens if it comes to light that someone missed their hospital appointment? Would that attract a sanction?
.
No; the compulsion would need to come via a Mandatory Activity Notice for a sanction to be available.
forum member
Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council
Total Posts: 1964
Joined: 12 October 2012
Refusal of MR made by phone is now back with us, with DLA staff telling a colleague first of all that she was not allowed to request MR as she did not have power of attorney, then telling her that the rules have changed and all MRs must now be made in writing.
forum member
Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service
Total Posts: 3138
Joined: 17 June 2010
Andrew Dutton - 29 November 2016 02:52 PMRefusal of MR made by phone is now back with us, with DLA staff telling a colleague first of all that she was not allowed to request MR as she did not have power of attorney, then telling her that the rules have changed and all MRs must now be made in writing.
Not convinced it ever went away tbh. My standard advice to clients is
a) you can start an MR on the phone. If that’s not accepted, simply put the phone down; give it 5 minutes (to compose yourself as much as anything) and then start again. Usually get a sane one within 3 to 5 calls.
b) you may also be told you must have new medical evidence. Whilst that could be helpful, it is actually untrue. If you ask for an MR in time then they simply must do it.
Not had a client report an issue with this tactic although ideally it should not have to come to that.
As far as claimant commitments are concerned I’ve found, as previously posted, that a complaint/letter before action does the trick. However, I am aware of 1 case belonging to a GM colleague where, as I suspected, challenging the inclusion of health appointments took that out but resulted in more onerous things being added in. The claimant then got sanctioned on one of the new things before a complaint could be lodged. Very much a case of be careful what you wish for I guess.