Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
New form for requesting a MR
The DWP have published a form that you can complete to request a MR - not obligatory but might be useful - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/challenge-a-decision-made-by-the-department-for-work-and-pensions-dwp
Thanks Daphne, I think this is useful.
(seems odd, though, that there’s nowhere on the form to specify the date of the decision being challenged - it’s easy to imagine situations where this could make things a bit messy later on… I’d suggest writing ‘(Decision Date: xx/xx/xxxx)’ in the space after checking the ‘in time’ box, if there’s any possibility of confusion)
Thanks Daphne, I think this is useful.
(seems odd, though, that there’s nowhere on the form to specify the date of the decision being challenged - it’s easy to imagine situations where this could make things a bit messy later on… I’d suggest writing ‘(Decision Date: xx/xx/xxxx)’ in the space after checking the ‘in time’ box, if there’s any possibility of confusion)
That really is quite bizarre isn’t it? They ask are you challenging within one month of the decision but don’t collect details of the date of the decision.
The notes only list telephone and post as ways to request an MR, does that imply that putting a request on a UC journal isn’t an officially sanctioned route?
not obligatory but might be useful
I predict that some DWP staff will treat this as the only proper to obtain an MRN, and requests made other ways will merely receive an explanation. Or maybe I’m just being pessimistic.
The notes only list telephone and post as ways to request an MR, does that imply that putting a request on a UC journal isn’t an officially sanctioned route?
People keep holding this out as a way to request an MR. I have never seen it succeed. The case managers who respond to these requests either tell you to phone up the helpline or deflect the request.
I have been told that part of the reason why it isn’t acceptable to request an MR on the journal is that they can’t confirm that you have agreed to the “Declaration” on the journal.
If someone knows how to get an MR request done via the journal, I would really like to know.
Perhaps in another few years, they will be able to integrate this form into the journal.
“Perhaps in another few years, they will be able to integrate this form into the journal.”
Perhaps in another few years, someone at DWP will actually have some idea of what they are doing. Not holding my breath.
The notes only list telephone and post as ways to request an MR, does that imply that putting a request on a UC journal isn’t an officially sanctioned route?
People keep holding this out as a way to request an MR. I have never seen it succeed. The case managers who respond to these requests either tell you to phone up the helpline or deflect the request.
I have been told that part of the reason why it isn’t acceptable to request an MR on the journal is that they can’t confirm that you have agreed to the “Declaration” on the journal.
If someone knows how to get an MR request done via the journal, I would really like to know.
Perhaps in another few years, they will be able to integrate this form into the journal.
Hi Eliot- CPAG’s Early Warning System is quite interested in examples of MR “gatekeeping” of the sort you refer to (ie refusing to acknowledge an MR made via the journal). See here: http://www.cpag.org.uk/early-warning-system
The accompanying notes are poor:
“Please don’t send ...... Information you have already provided”
What, like evidence you provided for previous DLA / ESA / PIP claims that probably has been destroyed or not passed on to the current DM? Stuff you handed in at the face to face assessment that often never makes it to the DM? Paperwork you showed to staff at the jobcentre that never got coped and sent on to the DM? Evidence you sent direct to Capita / Atos / Maximus that didn’t get passed on to the DWP?
On the issue of requesting MR via the journal, this is our standard practice - and I’ve yet to have the DWP refuse to carry out the MR when it is requested this way;
What I do is compose a journal entry with the client….“I would like to request a mandatory reconsideration of the 1/2/2018 decision that I am not entitled to Universal Credit because I do not have a right of residence sufficient to entitle me to that benefit. I authorise Mr past caring of Southwark Law Centre, Hanover Park House, 14-16 Hanover Park etc. to act for me in this request. Below is the letter sent on my behalf by Southwark Law Centre setting the grounds for mandatory reconsideration.
COPY AND PASTE LETTER HERE”
I then take a screenshot of the Journal with our MR request sitting there, print it off and stick it in the client’s file.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere on here, DWP admin has been awful for a number of years - therefore I don’t want to take a chance on being able to evidence that the MR or appeal was requested, so have always previously sent these by PO special delivery. You can’t do this with the UC Freepost address - in fact, because the Freepost address has neither a Freepost reference code or a post code, you cannot get proof of postage by taking the letter to the Post Office as you would with any other letter. So copying the MR to the journal is actually the only way of properly evidencing that the request was made.
The issue we do have - which I’ve mentioned elsewhere - is that even though the MR is then carried out at our behest, the MR notice is only ever notified by an upload to the client’s journal. No copy comes out in the post to us. However, where this (and the client’s mental health problems making it difficult for them to maintain a UC claim) has then resulted in an appeal being late, I’ve not had a problem with the appeal being allowed to proceed.
ETA - on the other hand, I have a number of unrepresented clients who have had MR requests made via the journal ignored. Again, though, when they later come to us to pursue the issue, I have yet to encounter a tribunal that was not prepared to accept the validity of their journal requests for MR.
[ Edited: 6 Mar 2018 at 01:13 pm by past caring ]Hi Eliot- CPAG’s Early Warning System is quite interested in examples of MR “gatekeeping” of the sort you refer to (ie refusing to acknowledge an MR made via the journal). See here: http://www.cpag.org.uk/early-warning-system
Hi Martin, I’ve just sent over a bunch of EWS reports (I think 8) on this and other issues. Hopefully might be of some use. I’ll try to get some more done when I have some more spare time.
Thanks Daphne, I think this is useful.
(seems odd, though, that there’s nowhere on the form to specify the date of the decision being challenged - it’s easy to imagine situations where this could make things a bit messy later on… I’d suggest writing ‘(Decision Date: xx/xx/xxxx)’ in the space after checking the ‘in time’ box, if there’s any possibility of confusion)
That really is quite bizarre isn’t it? They ask are you challenging within one month of the decision but don’t collect details of the date of the decision.
Part 3 asks if the application is being made within one month of the date on the decision and to give reasons for lateness if not. But it would still seem sensible to ask for the date of the decision - particularly if there is more than one decision notice on the same or connected issue (ie WCA outcome decision and entitlement ending decision or entitlement ending and overpayment decisions).
Aside from the issue of posting to UC journal this form MAY avoid MRs getting ‘lost’ through the black hole in the Black Country. My understanding is that any post that does not have a specified form number (ie an ESA3) gets scanned to a general work box to be picked up by a processor ‘as & when’. This has been a particular problem with ESA MRs which just sit in the box not being dealt with. So maybe now there is a numbered MR form it will get scanned into a specific work box and get dealt with?
Have people seen this at the end of page 3 of the notes about how to apply for a MR? Advisers tend not to bother reading the notes as we know the rules, but individual claimants do and they make up the majority of people mounting disputes. It certainly strongly implies that people can’t apply for an MR until they have had an explanation, thus adding another layer to the disputes process and we know that at each stage some people give up.
“Requesting a Mandatory Reconsideration
If you’ve had the decision explained to you but still don’t agree with it, you can ask for a Mandatory Reconsideration. This means a different decision maker will look at your claim and see if the decision was right or wrong.”
So that old bad and unlawful practice of telling people they had to first have an explanation before applying for a MR is back with us. It’s like a recurring viral infection.
I know this is being raised with DWP, but it won’t do any harm for others to also do so