Attendance Allowance and MRs - ‘new procedure’??

AA refused June 16

Claimant tells adviser that she wants MR - adviser duly writes for one.

AA phone claimant’s daughter- who is NOT her appointee and was not aware of the MR request – and ‘explain’ the decision to her.

AA state that daughter has accepted the decision therefore there will be no MR.

Adviser calls AA, who say that an MRN will not be issued owing to a ‘new rule’ -  which turns out to be a procedure being implemented by AAU that, following every MR request received, they MUST phone the client first, explain the criteria for the benefit, and the reasons for the decision, and then ask the client whether or not they wish to leave it, or they want a MR.

If it is really the case that AA are taking this line with MR applications, it is the opposite of what has happened with PIP,  and it will inevitably lead to many people being ‘talked out’ of proceeding with MR, and will leave no paper-trail!

Has anyone else seen evidence of this?

See this thread: http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/10042/

Yes indeed, we’ve been lobbing that at them in other cases. Are AA pulling away from general DWP policy and setting their own?

Update - AA have called the adviser back and said that they have now spoken direct to the claimant and that she has ‘agreed not to take it any further’..

The way it’s coming over, the purpose of the call was to get the MR withdrawn. MR was requested in writing three days ago so in my book it goes ahead.

As far as I am aware there has been no referendum to secede from the DWP (DWPexit?) nor to devolve powers in this case.

Is this not exactly how PIP calls started. “Explain” = “Kindly withdraw”?

Have raised this with stakeholders and will let you know any response…

It’s not just Attendance Allowance - I had a call about a Disability Living Allowance decision where I’d requested a reconsideration of the date someone leaving residential care had been paid their care component from.  The DWP man explained in great detail why they weren’t going to pay it from an earlier date than they already had and how my letter (which had taken over a month to get this response) would have to be passed to an office in the West Midlands for the mandatory reconsideration to be considered by a decision-maker if I insisted on carrying on with the request.

I replied that I did want a written response to my request (on the claimant’s behalf) for a mandatory reconsideration, even if that response were a negative one.

Received another call 3 days later from someone else who advised that they disagreed with their colleague that the care component shouldn’t be paid from an earlier date.

Going to see the claimant tomorrow to make sure he’s received his money (and the sdp he’s entitled to as a result).