Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Mandatory reconsideration process
Hello all..
Can someone confirm that . this is still relevant.
Option of requesting MRR over journal appears to be taken out of the form and website https://www.gov.uk/mandatory-reconsideration/how-to-ask-for-mandatory-reconsideration
Thanks
[ Edited: 28 Jan 2019 at 12:45 pm by MKM35 ]Reg 5 of the UC, PIP, JSA and ESA (decisions and appeals) regs just says ‘an application for a revision is received by the Secretary of State at an appropriate office’ - surely writing in the journal meets this as it should be read by the decision maker in the appropriate office?
Weird that they’ve removed it though - I can ask via stakeholders if there’s a reason for it…
On 12/11, DWP decided client not entitled to UC as custodial sentence began on 7/11.
Raised MRN on journal re: 12/11 decision. Received an odd little response (see attached word). Is this a MRN? A written explanation?
Would you please raise it with the stakeholders? A lot of the MRR we made over the journal have been well - not denied - but an example attached below
File Attachments
- Decision_made_12_Nov.docx (File Size: 266KB - Downloads: 2196)
Reply via stakeholders forum -
I understand that work is in place to ensure the MR page, you refer to below, will have a line added advising that the journal can be used to ask for a MR. This will be changed as soon as possible.
They haven’t amended the page yet! I’ll also send the example you attached back to them - that is definitely not a MRN - there is no right of appeal set out on it!
Thanks, Daphne!
HI MKM - this is the response to me sending them the journal extract -
Thanks for the attached note, but I have to say it’s not typical of what UC letters look like , however without any details I couldn’t comment further. I really suggest this is referred back through the local jobcentre as it may have been put together to address a specific claimant request, or a requested printout from a journal – but without more info it’s only a guess.
Their argument is it’s not typical - if you have a few cases to demonstrate that it isn’t I don’t mind going back - otherwise I guess use local escalation - not v satisfactory!
[ Edited: 20 Feb 2019 at 12:17 pm by Daphne ]Thanks, Daphne.
It was a reply to our MRR - details on the snip above. It’s not a requested printout either (taking this to mean we requested JCP print it out - no, it’s a snip of the online letter)
Will poke around the other cases to determine if it’s typical or not. Will let you know if I find more people with similar letters.
Thanks again