Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
KPI’s for mandatory reconsideration
forum member
Information and advice resources - Age UK
Total Posts: 3196
Joined: 7 January 2016
They said The key measures which are used by the Department for Work and Pensions to monitor Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) performance are:
a) 90% to be cleared within target.
b) 80% of the original decisions are to be upheld.
Note, key measures used to monitor MR performance are 80% of the original decisions are to be upheld. That’s exactly what they say.
FoI enquirer asks (2) what precisely does the key measure that “80% of the original decisions are to be upheld” mean? Does it mean that staff under taking mandatory reconsiderations should uphold 80% of original decisions? Or does it mean that staff undertaking original primary decisions should aim to have their decisions upheld 80% of the time through the mandatory reconsideration process?
DWP Response is that (2) The 80% of original decisions upheld measure is an internal one used as an indicator of the quality of the original decision made by the department against the expectation that we will get the decision right at the earliest part of the process. We use the information, including feedback on cases overturned, to inform our learning requirements for the teams making the original decision. There is no target or standard for staff undertaking mandatory reconsiderations relating to how many of these are upheld.
Well hang on a minute, as noted above, DWP have explicitly stated in their first response that these are key measures to monitor MR performance - so how does that last sentence make any sense whatsover? Apparently, in the course of a couple of weeks, the 80% of original decisions upheld measure of MR performance has transmogrified into an internal indicator that has nothing to do with MR performance, even though they said that it was originally.
This is blatant obfuscation in my opinion - can they show us details of how they monitor this 80% internal indicator separately then? Exactly what procedures are there to monitor this and how, in fact, do they relate to the inclusion of the 80% target of original decisions being upheld to monitor MR performance? How does relating the 80% indicator of original decisions being correct to MR performance monitor the thousands of other decisions they make that aren’t subject to MR? It’s utter nonsense and back filling in my opinion.
Penny Mordaunt responded to written questions on KPIs this week…
The department does not have a Mandatory Reconsideration target for upholding original decisions. The 80 per cent figure, which was used in the answer to a recent Freedom of Information request, is used to assess the accuracy of benefit decisions. In order to ensure we have consistently accurate decisions we track and monitor Mandatory Reconsiderations to assess the quality of our initial decision making and to help understand and improve our processes.
and in response to a separate question on whether the DWP took legal advice…
Further to my reply [quoted above], the department does not have a Mandatory Reconsideration target for upholding original decisions. The 80 per cent figure is used to track and monitor Mandatory Reconsiderations to assess the quality of our initial decision making and to help understand and improve our processes. Therefore there was not a requirement to obtain legal advice.
forum member
Benefits adviser - Isle of Wight CAB
Total Posts: 509
Joined: 4 March 2011
Paul_Treloar_AgeUK - 06 July 2017 02:34 PMNote, key measures used to monitor MR performance are 80% of the original decisions are to be upheld. That’s exactly what they say.
“It is a general principle of law that the earliest statement…”
forum member
Information and advice resources - Age UK
Total Posts: 3196
Joined: 7 January 2016
PLP received response to their request, see attached.
As I understand things, they’re currently working up a follow-up response to this.
File Attachments
- SSWP_response_to_FOI_request.pdf (File Size: 57KB - Downloads: 2409)
Disability News Service reports views of a DWP helpline worker that decision makers have targets for ESA disallowances.
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/dwp-whistleblower-from-esa-helpline-exposes-obscene-system/
forum member
Welfare Rights Adviser - Southwark Law Centre, Peckham
Total Posts: 1116
Joined: 25 February 2014
Part of the response to the PLP request (specifically, the request for the number of appeals received following the MR decision being upheld) the DWP has responded as follows;
“3And also:
(1) The Department is unable to provide data on the number of claimants who have
lodged an appeal following an upheld mandatory reconsideration (MR) decision,
as not all appeals received are as a result of a MR being upheld.
We can however supply the number of appeals received as a result of MRs
decided and for April 2016 to March 2017 the DWP total was 34%.”
(my emphasis)
Maybe I’m being a bit dim or something (entirely possible) but how does one appeal without the MR having been upheld in the first place?
forum member
Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London
Total Posts: 2895
Joined: 12 March 2013
Where the decision is revised disadvantageously, or not fully advantageously presumably?
“Upheld” is a misleading term, it conveys to me a message that the claimant’s application has succeeded but it seems to mean “original decision confirmed and not revised in either direction”.
forum member
Principal - Forensic Accountants, Canterbury
Total Posts: 100
Joined: 26 September 2011
past caring - 08 September 2017 12:38 PMPart of the response to the PLP request (specifically, the request for the number of appeals received following the MR decision being upheld) the DWP has responded as follows;
“3And also:
(1) The Department is unable to provide data on the number of claimants who have
lodged an appeal following an upheld mandatory reconsideration (MR) decision,
as not all appeals received are as a result of a MR being upheld.
We can however supply the number of appeals received as a result of MRs
decided and for April 2016 to March 2017 the DWP total was 34%.”
I do love the way that they play on words.
However I do have to admit that there is a good percentage of claimants that accept the DWP’s initial decision, whether it is the right one or not, because they cannot face further rejection at MR stage.
And there are many that go as far as an MR only to find that nothing is changed and refuse to go to a Tribunal hearing once again for the same reason.
I would love to know how many claimants there are where the original decision is clearly wrong but do not seek a review of that decision either by way of a MR or Tribunal hearing?
I find that the three main reasons given for this inaction is (a) the stress involved (b) the fear of having to argue their claim in a court setting and (c) not being able to obtain quality advice and assistance.
forum member
Information and advice resources - Age UK
Total Posts: 3196
Joined: 7 January 2016
In response to pressure from the Work and Pensions Select Committee the Department for Work and Pensions has announced that its target for upholding original PIP and ESA decisions at the first stage of appeal, known as Mandatory Reconsideration (MR), will be dropped.
The Department’s response “categorically state(s) that there has never been a Mandatory Reconsideration target for upholding original decisions”, and that the 80% target, “an internal measurement only used to indicate areas” where there were problems with the original decisions being made, will be dropped.
Commenting on the response, Rt Hon Frank Field MP Chair of the Committee, said
“It is great news that the target has been dropped and we congratulate the Department on this response. This is a great victory for the thousands of PIP and ESA claimants who have responded to our inquiry, and for anyone going through this process, who can now go to the first stage of appealing a benefits decision with more confidence that the reconsideration will be fair and impartial.”
Victory for claimants as Government agrees to reform PIP & ESA process