Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
DWP making client to do MRs, can’t appeal
Hello,
Client was turned down for PIP due to residency issues.
Client submitted information in writing for the purposes of an MR and got a text from DWP confirming they were looking at the decision again and would respond within 10 weeks
Client got letter from DWP saying they had looked at the claim and decided client couldn’t get PIP due to residency issues (past presence test and lack of genuine link to UK). Letter was a first decision letter not MR letter.
Page 2 of letter says they can do MR
Client called DWP to enquire and they said they will do a MR and get back to her.
Why the need for 2 MRs? Have they made an error? Seems to just be delaying the date they can appeal by weeks
Thanks
Joel
Not unheard of that DWP simply sends the wrong letter (PIP.7011 instead of PIP.7012). Is there anything in the text body of the letter to suggest a reconsideration has taken place?
have similar view. DWP are renowned for letter error. Additionally what you may also have is a letter based on some sort of internal misunderstanding, in that you have a written explanation of the decision hence the invite to MR.
Sadly some of the mistakes made by DWP gives rise to wondering due to the many mistakes, is it a deliberate construct or a serious training issue.
If I had two decisions with a recon request in the middle of them then I’d fill in the sscs1 and send it in arguing that the second is an admin error and they’ve done the MR.
Thanks all.
Yeah the first letter said she was turned down and could do an MR.
MR done, got text confirming they were processing the MR.
Second letter was similar to first letter just saying a decision had been made and client would have to do MR to challenge.
Neither letter was an MR notice or mentioned right to appeal being an option.
Sounds like a mistake then, the client has now done another MR. Bit frustrating!
If its any help we had the same scenario and did what Dan advises above, and HMCTS accepted it.
That’s super helpful. No harm in sticking an SSCS1 form in anyway then explaining things.
That’s super helpful. No harm in sticking an SSCS1 form in anyway then explaining things.
Yep. I recently had an appeal accepted where UC had refused to even conduct an MR. I think the Judiciary are getting a bit vexed.