Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
UC Centre Gatekeeping regarding responding to Mandatory Reconsideration applications
Life in the UC lane…...................
Client is computer illiterate and has severe debilitating health conditions making it difficult to attend appointments and impractical to access journal. He requested a late Mandatory Reconsideration on the journal (7 days late) with our help.
DWP responded advising he had to phone the service centre to lodge MR.
Client responded with our help on the journal asking the DWP to process MR i.e. make a formal decision, attaching links to DWP guidance and advising MR’s can be made via a note on the journal.
http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2018-0759/Mandatory_Reconsideration_v3.0.pdf.
The DWP responded referring to DWP guidance, effectively rejected his application because it was outside one month, instead of putting it in front of a decision maker to make a formal decision?
Adding he could request an ‘extension of the one month limit as per DWP policy’?
Client’s MR application via the journal did actually ask for the late MR to be accepted i.e. time to be extended citing reasons.
Talking of the guidance i think the DWP would be well advised to revisit it - i’m guessing the extract below is a misinterpretation of ‘late application for a revision’ Reg 6 (7) ‘An application under this regulation which has been refused may not be renewed’.
‘Note: If the claimant does not ask for a reconsideration within the time limit and
the reason(s) for lateness is not accepted, the claimant has no right of appeal in
relation to the original decision. It would be an exceptional case that is not
admitted late’.
Its now well over a year since the 3JP decided in R(CJ) and SG v SSWP (ESA) [2017] UKUT 0324 (AAC) that there would be a right of appeal if a decision maker refused an MR because it was late.
Its now well over a year since the 3JP decided in R(CJ) and SG v SSWP (ESA) [2017] UKUT 0324 (AAC) that there would be a right of appeal if a decision maker refused an MR because it was late.
Its all very puzzling Derek, oh and thanks for the response!
I was going to respond to this to the effect that gatekeeping is still rife.
I can think of at least two cases recently where our more junior advice staff/volunteers were simply told outright by the helpline that an MR could not be requested after 1 month and they would not even go through the pro forma.
One of those clients came back to me and I phoned back up and the operator (1) told me that a request couldn’t be taken outside the month, (2) when I explained that it could be extended, told me that I would need “extremely good reasons” and I probably didn’t have them, (3) went on to suggest that I consider backdating instead and, only after I explained that backdating would be limited to one month, did she even open up the MR pro forma. Even once we were onto the pro forma, she (4) tried to discourage me from progressing the request by telling me that if my arguments amounted only to disagreement with the DWP’s decision and I didn’t have new evidence, then I was unlikely to succeed and it probably wasn’t worth bothering - and (5) explained that my client’s reasons for lateness were not very good and she “needed” to advise me that they were unlikely to be accepted.
If I were more cynical, I would have thought that the operator had been specifically instructed to say everything possible to dissuade me from pursuing that application.
[ Edited: 5 Oct 2018 at 05:35 pm by Elliot Kent ]The latest response on journal concerning this client’s request for a MR - after ‘explanation’ this extract below - :
‘Are you satisfied with this explanation? Please response clearly and distinctly with “Yes” or “No.”
If “Yes” there will be no mandatory reconsideration of the decision.
If “No”, and you would still like the decision to be reconsidered, would you like to provide any additional evidence to support your reconsideration? Please respond clearly and distinctly with “Yes” or “No”.
If “No” we will refer the case to a decision maker.
If “Yes”, please detail what this evidence is. Please then indicate whether you agree to the following declaration by clearly and distinctly responding “I agree” or “I do not agree”: I agree that the information I have given is complete and correct and will report changes to my circumstances promptly in my online account or by calling 0800 328 5644.
I understand that I may be prosecuted or need to pay a penalty if I give wrong or incomplete information, or do not report a change.
If “Yes” and “I do not agree”, we will not proceed with a mandatory reconsideration.
If “Yes and “I agree”, you will have 14 days in which to supply this evidence. If after 14 days no evidence has been received the case will be referred to a decision maker on the existing information. You may supply evidence by posting it to Freepost DWP UNIVERSAL CREDIT FULL SERVICE, or by booking an appointment with the jobcentre to provide it at a face to face interview’.
This is always useful, but sounds like it could do with an update for UCFS: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/6906/P75/#37555
This is always useful, but sounds like it could do with an update for UCFS: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/6906/P75/#37555
Thanks Owen its a long story, didn’t copy and paste the ‘explanation’ on the journal, but this whole MR scenario is really about maladministration rather than gatekeeping, and although especially noteworthy example. Is not an isolated case when it comes to MR’s not being passed on to DM’s/CM’s, or journal entries having a decision made on them.
The MR actually relates to two issues i.e. date of claim, claim initiated by phone (client computer illiterate and has debilitating health conditions). We are arguing on client’s behalf that his claim should be treated from the date of the phone call, not from when the jobcentre actually submitted the UC claim on line. The second issue is backdating i.e. the one month from the date of claim.
We helped client respond to the latest reiterating the above and referring to journal entries dating back to the Spring and citing the same grounds and the same legislation we have cited many times e.g. regs 8, 10, 26 UC (C&P) regs 2013.
We asked for the 3rd time would they action the SAR we requested in June on the journal.
We discussed with client re: copying and pasting the letter from his MP to Esther McVey on the journal regarding the above, or letting things take their course i.e. until someone high up on behalf of the SOS gets in contact with the relevant higher uppers etc etc etc and our client’s MR request made over 4 months ago is properly taken account of etc etc. Client opted for latter hoping if he did others may benefit. We lauded his sentiments but cautioned him regarding holding his breath.
Although from a social policy point of view and strategic case work point of view, we are hoping the strategy via the journal and an influential MP to the SOS may focus minds in the particular benefit centre and beyond. Just caught myself holding my breath!
Similarly, posting this scenario on Rightsnet too!
Oh we’ve shared this with CPAG’s Early Warning System already and sent them an update.
Just a thought but has anyone bypassed the above and treated an entry on the journal as a an identifiable decision, and appealed on that basis to HMCTS, arguing Rule 7 re: lack of formal MR letter, citing the journal entry? We considered that option too with client.
Another example of UC MR Gatekeeping
A UC claim is closed. The claimant phones up to challenge the closure and gets told you can only request an MR after you have made a new claim and attended the ID interview.
Which is nonsense.
They’ve even written it on their notes on the claim.
Client has got a response from the Complaints Resolution Manager for our region in response to his online complaint made back in the Summer.
The response advised that they had contacted the ‘contact centre’ and were told his MR was not acted upon because he had not phoned them? The Complaints Resolution Manager limited their role to just that i.e. nothing proactive like ensuring his MR was passed on to a DM/CM.
Client has got a response from the Complaints Resolution Manager for our region in response to his online complaint made back in the Summer.
The response advised that they had contacted the ‘contact centre’ and were told his MR was not acted upon because he had not phoned them? The Complaints Resolution Manager limited their role to just that i.e. nothing proactive like ensuring his MR was passed on to a DM/CM.
I’d use the complaint response as the basis for an SSCS1 since it confirms an MR request that was never acted upon and escalate the complaint to the DG or, if that was the final response, to the Independent Case Examiner.
Client has got a response from the Complaints Resolution Manager for our region in response to his online complaint made back in the Summer.
The response advised that they had contacted the ‘contact centre’ and were told his MR was not acted upon because he had not phoned them? The Complaints Resolution Manager limited their role to just that i.e. nothing proactive like ensuring his MR was passed on to a DM/CM.
I’d use the complaint response as the basis for an SSCS1 since it confirms an MR request that was never acted upon and escalate the complaint to the DG or, if that was the final response, to the Independent Case Examiner.
Actually that is a really interesting idea, the case has already been escalated by the MP to up and high, client happy to wait for response. We have escalated though to next stage just for completeness.
The irony on paper was that in this case there was a very late HB appeal and equally very late CTR revision arguably on paper harder scenario’s (client had few thousand quids worth of rent arrears and big council Tax bill, the locally authority’s response was to contact us to discuss client’s circumstances and work with us to help this client. In half of the time we have been faffing around this MR the LA lapsed both in client’s favour, saving his tenancy, and getting his rent arrears down to a manageable amount, as far as the RSL are concerned.
He has also been found to have LCW, we cannot make an arguable case for LCWRA, sadly post April 2017, that took less time than this whole scenario i.e. basic prosaic MR re: backdating and date of UC claim.
But returning to your theme, and i know i’ve asked this already, but has anyone argued an entry on the journal as a decision, arguing Rule 7 (1) on an SSCS1.
The reason i ask is because we as an org and i would imagine everyone else would not be able to sustain resource wise the ongoing maladministration regarding UC MR’s, with the current numbers of claimant’s naturally migrating or making new claims alone.
Extracts from the response from the Group Director for the South West to our MP included the following - :
1.‘It is reasonable to expect that they (us) would have assisted him (our client) in making claim before he did. I note they were assisting him on and after 15th March which is the date he has asked to backdate his claim to’.
We did help him make a claim on the 15th March we used a telephone and rang the UC enquiry line with client to start the whole claim process, because client could not assisted by us or otherwise make a claim online.
2. ‘Mr X has replied confirming he would like to proceed with the mandatory reconsideration and i have asked for this to be looked at urgently. I am sorry it has taken so long to reach this point’.
We helped client confirm on the journal on 6 occasions (actually 7 including MP’s letter) he would like to proceed with his MR, after submitting MR.
For an ostensibly simple yay or nay MR, bearing in mind client hasn’t even got a decision yet. Its been quite a journey!
I want to hear about any and all cases of MR gatekeeping - this is a particular focus for me this month, so please inundate me!
If you’ve got any cases where claimants were unaware they could challenge decisions, or were delayed or prevented from doing so - please let me know. The more example cases we have, the greater our impact so don’t be afraid to submit numerous cases with similar stories (or as many as time allows).
You can submit anonymous case details in our online form: http://www.cpag.org.uk/early-warning-system or email me .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
From Jake at the Ballymena Service Centre in response to the following…..............
Either the MR made on journal today - challenging a decision finding client did not having LCW or the other MR challenging an open ended sanction decision against a failure to respond to a phone Work search interview/WFI?
‘You and a CAB rep spoke to my colleague earlier. Unfortunately this call did not cover all the elements we needed to discuss. You are within your rights to request MR and I will be happy to do this for you, however as previously stated the process must be completed over the phone.
Your backdating MR was raised via the journal as an exceptional last resort. We have tried calling you today but your phone does not connect. Call us on 0800 328 5644 to enable us to process your MR request’.
Jake from the Ballymena Service centre then added after we sent a link to the DWP guidance http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2018-0759/Mandatory_Reconsideration_v3.0.pdf
‘Yes, and we have accepted the request. I was very clear about that. However accepting a request and actually processing it are two very different things. I have tried calling again, however still the call does not connect. To move this ahead Mr X, you will need to call us, or be available to take a call from us’.
Jake was asked why a phone call is necessary
‘Hi,
‘The document which provides the instructions for the Universal Credit mandatory reconsideration process requires a telephone call to have a recording of the decision being explained to the claimant, along with a declaration being read out for the claimant to consent to.
I cannot provide the exact wording of this process as this comes from a document classified as Official-Sensitive’.
Regards,
Jake
Well the backdating finally decided MR application and a separate LCW MR application refused on the journal initially because a phone call had to be made was decided in record time i.e. 14 days. Both refused, but nonetheless etc etc!
DWP complaints resolution dept still holding to the line that a ‘The mandatory reconsideration process requires a conversation to explain the decision’?
‘The purpose of this contact is not to dispute the mandatory reconsideration request but allows the decision to be explained. The responses provided determines further progress of the mandatory reconsideration and an opportunity for further information to be gathered’.
See extract of FOI below and link to DWP internal guidance i.e. ‘Agent Led Process for Mandatory Reconsiderations, which provides the instructions for agents to follow’.
Thank you for your Freedom of Information (FoI) request received on 15 November. You
asked:
When helping a client make a Mandatory Reconsideration request on the Universal Credit
journal. We were told by Ballymena Service centre that accepting a Mandatory
Reconsideration request and actually processing it are two very different things.
To progress the Mandatory Reconsideration Reconsideration, we were told despite lodging it
on the journal, client has to phone the enquiry line. When asked why a phone call is necessary
when he has already made it clear he would like a Mandatory reconsideration, this was the
response on the journal below.
‘The document which provides the instructions for the Universal Credit mandatory
reconsideration process requires a telephone call to have a recording of the decision being
explained to the claimant, along with a declaration being read out for the claimant to consent
to. I cannot provide the exact wording of this process as this comes from a document classified
as Official-Sensitive’.
Two questions
1. What is the legal basis for not deciding a Mandatory Reconsideration made on the journal,
without a phone call.
2. Please can we have a copy of the above guidance alluded to on the client’s journal.
DWP Response:
1. The regulations on Mandatory Reconsideration do not restrict the methods by which MRs
can be requested. All MR request methods are lawful and will be accepted by the
Department, including by Journal.
2. Please find attached the Agent Led Process for Mandatory Reconsiderations, which
provides the instructions for agents to follow.