2 Mandatory Reconsiderations on one ESA decision (?)

Hi,

My client requested an MR of an ESA (PCA) decision.  I assisted her to send in more evidence however I had not had sight of the ESA 85.  I had a call from a DM saying the decision had been revised from 0 to 12 points and that this decision would be sent out to her to appeal.

I then received the ESA 85 and sent in more information as a result.

The client has now received two MR letters.  The first I expected to state that the decision had been revised from 0 to 12 points however it did not – it states no entitlement based on 0 points.  The second acknowledges further information and the original MR, but again no entitlement based on 0 points.

The client received these letters in time to appeal the second MR but not in time to appeal the first.  I have assisted her to put in an appeal for the second and have also sent a late appeal request to HMCTS directly re. the first MR.

Has anyone else experienced this i.e. are the DWP able to carry out 2 MRs on the same decision?  Also, have I done the right thing putting in an appeal of the first MR? 

Any comments gratefully received.

The first MR decision resulted in a new decision being made awarding 12 points ( the decision was changed albeit the situation remained the same - still no ESA).

As the decision was changed; I would have expected a new MR request to be needed and then if no success an appeal.

I don’t think you can appeal the 12 points decision straight off, because that was a new decision and the MR process starts all over again. It would seem DWP may not have understood this….

As for the decisions you have been sent it sounds like they have it half right - I would expect two MR decisions but one for “0” points and one for “12”.

From my experience there are still many teething problems and the DWP don’t quite seem to have the hang of MRs and DLs yet.

I may have this wrong in which case I too still don’t have the hang of them either!!

I would ignore my reply above - having a meltdown!

The original decision has not been changed or revised, a determination necessary to and embodied in the decision has.  The outcome decision is a decision on entitlement to ESA.  That hasn’t changed.  She is still not entitled to ESA.  The MR has been carried out on the original and she should have a straight right of appeal. 

“....have I done the right thing putting in an appeal of the first MR”?

Yes.