Explanations rear their head again

Wow

I’ve just had a run in with someone on the new reconsideration team. How long has it been that the call staff don’t accept recon requests for ESA?

That aside the DM/manager that I just spoke to at Plymouth must have had special call diversion training; even once we’d identified that it was reg35 in issue she steadfastly refused to accept the recon request over the phone inisisting that the claimant provide evidence that contradicts the HCP’s findings in the ESA85.

Is this part of the push to UC I wonder? Making i t as hard as possible to get MR proceedings under way.

Very similar experience here; I’ve had difficulties in persuading escalation point manager that MR submitted over the phone by my client about her ESA, in my presence during an advice session, was valid. Submitted over a month ago, nothing done about it because it was not treated as MR request.

Jo_Smith - 21 January 2019 12:31 PM

Very similar experience here; I’ve had difficulties in persuading escalation point manager that MR submitted over the phone by my client about her ESA, in my presence during an advice session, was valid. Submitted over a month ago, nothing done about it because it was not treated as MR request.

In this scenario- would a complaint and asking for them to listen to the recordings be a suitable solution? I have had a similar situation with a PIP reconsideration done over the telephone- that does not seem to have been logged.

Perhaps you should refer DWP staff who take this approach to the DWP form here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/683380/if-you-disagree-with-a-decision-made-by-dwp.PDF which actively encourages MR by phone.

“It is easier to call
You can ask for a Mandatory Reconsideration over the phone. Your claim will be looked at in exactly the same way. It’s much quicker and you can explain why you think the decision is wrong over the phone, without needing to fill anything in. The phone number to call is at the top of your decision letter.”

Is there a new memo to call-handlers on this? I’ve just had it this afternoon and because she hasn’t had a ‘decision assurance’ call they couldn’t possibly take an MR over the phone.  She checked with her team leader ‘who confirmed she was right’ but wasn’t available to speak to me.  How are people handling these, just individual complaints on a case by case basis? If you now have to wait 3 days for a verbal explanation, and no doubt people will miss the call, how long is this going to add? How frustrating

Judicial Review due to lack of a decision and failure to act?

I saw letter from |Pension Service last week in response to one of our advisers submitting letter that clearly stated the client wanted “reconsideration” of decision.

They wrote back saying verbatim, the first part of the process for challenging decisions is for us to give you an explanation of our decision. Now that we’ve done that, if you still disagree with our decision, you have one month to ask us for a mandatory reconsideration of the decision.

The original MR had been sent in October, they replied in January in this way.

Andy P requested the UC MR procedure here, I guess similar guidance will apply to other benefits:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/universal_credit_making_mandator

After the MR request is logged, it says:

1.4 If you are not in conversation with the claimant - call the claimant

Explain the decision to the claimant

- Is the claimant satisfied with the explanation?
Yes - go to 1.8
No - go to 1.5

This guidance implies that the explanatory call must be done before moving on to any further step. It gives no option to bypass the call, even if the claimant has already made it plain they are not interested in further explanations.

It also doesn’t say what to do if the claimant can’t be reached, so someone following this guidance might conclude that the MR process stalls here unless the claimant takes a call. [edit - .. or makes a call, as per the UC practice of a journal note asking the claimant to ring in]

Hmm - message sent to client on her journal after we sent in MR -

Good Morning {————],

In order for me to complete a Mandatory Reconsideration I will need yourself or the party you have given authorisation to, to call 08003285644, as we need to capture as much information as possible

Regards

I’ll send this issue into stakeholders…

- Is the claimant satisfied with the explanation?
Yes - go to 1.8
No - go to 1.5

This appears to assume that someone who is satisfied with an explanation (no further explanation is wanted) cannot still disagree with the decision…

This was the reply I received via stakeholders forum - not satisfactory at all -

In relation to the explanation stage of the MR process, it remains the first part of the MR process. A verbal explanation is there to enable the work coach / case manager to help claimants understanding of the decision and how it was reached. It can be enough, in some cases,  that once a decision is explained in more context the claimant is satisfied having gained more understanding.

In cases where they have further evidence in relation to the decision or they are able to obtain further evidence at a later date or if it is clear that the claimant understands the original decision but is still unhappy and does not agree that we have made the right decision, then the next step of the MR process will be explained to them. There is no plan to remove the initial verbal explanation.

If there are any individual instances of this causing confusion, then could they please be raised through the local Job Centre or Partnership Manager. That will help us understand the scale of, and the reasons behind, any potential issues.

they are adamant it’s part of the process - I will keep on at them about this but perhaps also worth people taking it to their partnership managers as well?

I think you might have very unfairly omitted the part of the DWP response where they explain exactly which legal provisions justify or authorise this procedure…

It would be wonderful to live in this sort of bubble where the only reason that people might wish to appeal your decisions is because they have not understood them properly.

I think there is a serious problem of imbalance of power between DWP and claimants, especially where UC is concerned:

• DWP issues a decision which is often devoid of any information barring a curt summary of the decision itself

• Claimants then have to phone up to ask for an explanation – at which point they can be persuaded that the decision is correct and there is no point arguing.

One client told me it was ‘Like talking to a High Court solicitor’

• The same then happens when they are not just asking for an explanation but wanting to lodge MR

• There is little or no detail available to claimants when they take the problem to an adviser and this hampers further challenges

The imbalance needs to be addressed - otherwise people will be worn down by ‘explanations’ before they get the chance to challenge the decision properly. Intentionally or not, DWP is inserting layers of bureaucracy between claimants and access to justice.

I have twice recently had DWP telling me that decisions overturned at appeal (client found fit for work from Support Group, ends up back in Support Group at appeal) were in fact correct and that everything would be alright if it wasn’t for those interfering Tribunals.

If that is the attitude, what chance do claimants stand?

I’ve said it before - It’s processes before people.

Andrew Dutton - 20 February 2019 10:49 AM

One client told me it was ‘Like talking to a High Court solicitor’

 

that client hasn’t met me (or, indeed, most of my colleagues).  We tend to discuss things in plain english with clients since we want them to understand what’s happening with their case.

the DWP, of course, don’t want that at all….