Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
A Mandatory Reconsideration of a Mandatory Reconsideration decision?
I have a PIP case where an award of standard rate DL was awarded at first decision then upheld at MR stage. Client called to query why he had still not been awarded any mobility component and a further MR was then carried out with the result that he lost the DL award and points were removed. Is it lawful to have an MR of an MR decision? No new evidence was supplied or considered before the second MR decision.
Conceptually it is not an “MR of an MR”- the first MR was a decision not to revise- ie a decision not to make a decision under section 9. They then revised the original decision.
You may want to look at whether they commenced action leading to revision within a month- if they did not then I struggle to see how they found they could revise.
We have a case where a nil point award was made on a PIP new claim. A MR was requested and significant evidence provided (a lot was also provided at claim form stage). Appointee also provided a detailed response to the F2F assessment which was so appalling that Atos are investigating a complaint and were considering doing a second assessment (possibly paper based due to the amount of evidence). Before this could happen (surprise surprise) MR decision was made (within days) and 8 pts and SRDL awarded. Arguably this should be a much higher award and both components. Appointee wants to ask for a further review and hopefully still have the possibility of a second assessment. DWP says this has to be an appeal to HMCTS but it would be better if this was a further MR of the new determination given that Atos are still looking into the case and further evidence provided was ignored by MR DM. Just wondered what others thoughts are on the question of MR v appeal at this stage.
We have a case where a nil point award was made on a PIP new claim. A MR was requested and significant evidence provided (a lot was also provided at claim form stage). Appointee also provided a detailed response to the F2F assessment which was so appalling that Atos are investigating a complaint and were considering doing a second assessment (possibly paper based due to the amount of evidence). Before this could happen (surprise surprise) MR decision was made (within days) and 8 pts and SRDL awarded. Arguably this should be a much higher award and both components. Appointee wants to ask for a further review and hopefully still have the possibility of a second assessment. DWP says this has to be an appeal to HMCTS but it would be better if this was a further MR of the new determination given that Atos are still looking into the case and further evidence provided was ignored by MR DM. Just wondered what others thoughts are on the question of MR v appeal at this stage.
I think I’d be minded to lodge an appeal… Protects appeal rights & if decision is revised again before appeal is heard - fine - appeal lapses and client hasn’t lost out.
Obviously not privy to the strength of the evidence but I’m not sure I’d delay things in the hope of another more successful MR - particularly if this is predicated on another assessment being arranged (and the 2nd being any more helpful)...
I’m having a similar situation with a mandatory reconsideration (although for ESA not PIP). From my discussion with DWP this morning, notes indicate that a decision was made in January on an MR requested in December but this wasn’t notified to my client who was phoned this week to be told she needed to make a new MR request. (She of course didn’t realise that this had happened during the conversation as she’s so stressed about it all.)
I’ve jumped on the opportunity to submit an appeal against the decision made in January as this matter is already 6 months old and the way it’s going we’ll have had the appeal hearing before anything is properly notified.
I have a PIP case where an award of standard rate DL was awarded at first decision then upheld at MR stage. Client called to query why he had still not been awarded any mobility component and a further MR was then carried out with the result that he lost the DL award and points were removed. Is it lawful to have an MR of an MR decision? No new evidence was supplied or considered before the second MR decision.
I know this is only of academic interest but could this in fact be two MRs, eg Cl is awarded SRDL, rings up to say he should have had ERDL so they do an MR and turn him down. Cl then rings back and asks about mobility so they do second MR on the question of mobility and, during this process they turn him down for mobility and take away the DL as well.
As I said it’s only of academic interest, I concur with everyone who has said ‘lodge an appeal’ - i’d be curious to know what evidence was used to remove the DL component.