Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Mandatory reconsideration (written) requests
Just taken a call from a distressed client who has been turned down for PIP after a phone assessment. Gave her the usual spiel about registering an MR over the phone, giving details as to why she wants to challenge , etc. Two further calls received in the first of which she was told categorically by PIP that she needed to lodge her request in writing and that they could not deal with this on the phone. I suggested she might want to ring back and speak to a different adviser who should know that this was not the case. Final call in which a by now frustrated client told me she has now been told that it would be in “her best interests” to put her request in writing as he (the PIP helpline operator) could only take a few details as they didn’t have “enough space” to take full details.
I know that this has been discussed elsewhere on this forum as to the correctness (or otherwise) of this advice, but is anyone aware as to whether there has been a change of policy or guidance recently or is anyone else encountering this hurdle?
Curiously enough the second operator could see that the first call had been registered as an MR request but that it contained no details as to why…
very regularly. its basically gatekeeping,
we cant take it over the phone
you need to put it in writing
you need to send us evidence
you need to tell us exactly why you disagree
all of the above really.
Yes. Standard.
Part of my advice for new and old clients, who are reasonably capable of dealing with their claims themselves, is to just hang up and redial if they get an uncooperative DWP agent. Goes for MRs and most other enquiries. Another typical one is refusal to accept implicit consent when I call myself.
The problem obviously becomes more severe when it becomes gatekeeping that effectively stops claimants from submitting MRs, and especially for vulnerable/complex needs claimants.
The “could only take a few details as they didn’t have “enough space” to take full details” is nonsense - I’ve seen transcripts of phone MRs - multiple pages.
On the flip side, I’ve had a few where the claimant has been told the MR couldn’t be done over the phone, but subsequently received an MRN. Maybe a case of calls being reviewed…
I’ve been tempted to FOI the frequency of the issue, but can’t think of a phrasing of the question that would give a meaningful answer.
My advice re: this scenario really varies with the likelihood of the claim falling into the 16% of claims successful at MR. I consider a 16% success rate to effectively be random.
1 - if it’s a case that realistically is heading to appeal then put the phone down until you get a sane one if you absolutely must do it by phone. However, this is a tactic I tend to use most often for implied consent than MR. Life’s too short. Just get the MR down in writing and crack on.
2 - as above but just use the MR form from gov.uk to get the thing in and underway.
3 - if there’s something to really go at then is a phone call really going to be the route to resolution? Yes, but in limited circumstances in my experience. I’ve laid out really clear irrefutable circs. over the phone and still ended up at appeal where nothing extra to the MR won easily. The ‘reasonably capable’ claimant argument ceases to be relevant when up against staff doing MRs on the phone.
Yes, it is wrong and yes it is gatekeeping and effectively maladministration but at the end of the day I’d rather get something in writing with an audit trail where possible in the current climate.
Thanks for the responses folks and yes Mike I totally agree with your points. However my client is simply unable to put something in writing and contacted us with less than 2 days left on the MR “month” (in realistic terms she was only two weeks in as the letter arrived two weeks after it was dated), so there is no time to draft a full MR, get it to the client or get a signed authorisation to send it onwards in time, so the phone call was the most convenient and quickest way to get this done. I was pleased to hear that the second operator acknowledged that the MR had been lodged so I was able to let her know that we could go into further detail in the inevitable appeal,, but the fact remains that this “gatekeeping” is happening and would usually have put my client off challenging what is a decision based on a phone assessment where the assessor has, according to my client, made statements that my client insists were based on words that never passed her lips, e.g. she states she described all walking as being like walking on lego bricks with legs that felt as if they were filled with cement. This became “can walk for 5 minutes pain free” in the decision so no points scored. I guess the assessor has never walked or even stood on lego bricks, let alone tried shifting cement blocks for 5 minutes! it will, of course, be interesting to read the assessment report when it arrives to see if her statement actually made it in as well as her breaking down part way through…
I guess my point is that this is yet another example of the helpline operators “misinforming” claimants or just not following policy or guidance. Not all clients have access to advice services and could be put off by these “rogue” operators, though it is clear that the problem is perhaps more widespread. Sorry for the rant, I would usually do exactly the same as Mike suggests, but this one wound me up, as you can probably tell! (lockdown blues?)
It’s not worth getting too antsy about the “deadline”.
To the extent that the MR process is a genuine attempt at having the decision changed, then its worth taking a bit of extra time to get the request right even if that means missing the deadline and creating a very small chance that the DM might reject the request as late.
To the extent that the MR process is just a procedural hurdle on the route to appeal, then the month deadline is rendered toothless by R (CJ) and SG.
Just don’t miss the 13 month deadline…
Further to what Mike and Elliot said (and in cases where you might think a late appeal wouldn’t be allowed), there’s always the option of doing both. Submitting an MR over the phone (or trying to) doesn’t stop you from submitting further details/evidence via post, and for that matter that could be in the format of a CRMR1 or anything else to add further details or grounds to the MR.
If you want confirmation that an MR has been logged via phone you could probably get that with a SAR.
I think HMCTS would allow an appeal if you can establish that the claimant actively tried to submit an MR, even if s/he failed?