UC decision notices - are they lawful? Does MR process apply?

I think that your screen-grab is from a journal payment entry rather than a PDF decision notice. The PDF ones are not in the same terms and do refer to 1 month to request revision.

That limits the significance because whilst, in my view, all payment notices are appealable decisions - most of the decisions which people would want to appeal are issued as PDFs (WCA, HRT, sanctions etc).

I do think it is arguable that you are right that the failure to refer to the time limit in the screen-grab means that the claimant could opt to appeal directly without first going through MR for the reasons you give.

I’m far less sure that your colleague is right that this would invalidate the decision or leave it open to revision on official error grounds. Reg 7 operates to set out the conditions under which an MR is required prior to appeal - the SSWP has never been required to issue decision notices that include a notice under reg.7(1). If she chooses not to include a notice, then the consequence is just that the MR requirement doesn’t apply. It is true that reg 51(2) of the D&A Regs requires the SSWP to give notice of a right of appeal in any decision which has one, but I suspect that this would operate more as an excuse for the lodging of a late appeal than as invalidating the actual decision or leaving it open to any time review.

Interesting.

You might also be interested in Martin’s argument at post 4 here : https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/15413/

I’m not convinced Reg 7(3) is required before Reg 7(2) has effect. It puts a duty on the Secretary of State to inform the claimant of those matters, but would it otherwise invalidate the notice given?

I agree with Elliot about the official error argument, not least because I don’t think a failure to notify the decision makes the decision one which “arose from official error” (Reg 9).