Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Is it better to submit a late mandatory reconsideration or a change of circumstances for a client who wants to move from the WRAG to support group.
Hi, I have a client who was placed in the work-related activity group on 12/02/2014. She wants to get into the support group. I have gone through the criteria with her and she seems to meet it. However, the decision to place her in the WRAG group was made on 12/02/2014. She did not ask for a mandatory reconsideration at the time because she did not realise the implications of being in the WRAG group. Should we submit a late mandatory reconsideration or a change of circumstances?
What would the change of circumstances be?
I am using “change or circumstances” in the loose sense to ask them to reassess whether she meets the criteria now. Would we actually need to prove that the client had become worse?
Personally I have found doing supercessions (CoC) easier than appeals.
It all depends really on the evidence you have, the conditions suffered etc, date of change etc.
Personally I have found doing supercessions (CoC) easier than appeals.
It all depends really on the evidence you have, the conditions suffered etc, date of change etc.
The CPN has promissed me a supportive letter. The condition has not changed.
Then your options are either a late MR or a supersession based on mistake as to or ignorance of a material fact.
In practice, if we can show that the client meets the criteria for the support group, will the department be that concerned of whether there has been a mistake or ignorance of a material fact?
I am just a bit concerned that the ESA department may refuse our late request for a mandatory reconsideration on the basis that we do not have a justifiable reason for it being late.
Personally I have found doing supercessions (CoC) easier than appeals.
It all depends really on the evidence you have, the conditions suffered etc, date of change etc.
The CPN has promissed me a supportive letter. The condition has not changed.
Ask the CPN for a copy of the clinical risk and needs assessments instead. They’re easier for them to produce; they’re impartial so stronger evidence for a potential Tribunal and the information contained is often directly relevant to sched 2/3 reg 29/35
In practice, if we can show that the client meets the criteria for the support group, will the department be that concerned of whether there has been a mistake or ignorance of a material fact?
I am just a bit concerned that the ESA department may refuse our late request for a mandatory reconsideration on the basis that we do not have a justifiable reason for it being late.
Maybe not. But if you have to got to appeal the tribunal certainly will be because the onus will be on you to make out your supersession ground.
I would be interested in the outcome of this one, I have just asked for a review of a decision to place someone in the WRAG as it was based on ignorance of a number of material facts, especially that when the migration took place the claimant was detained under s.3 of the MHA and has very long and distressing history of MH problems. In my view the medical history is enough to put the claimant into the SG (under Reg35) from the migration date onwards.
It was well outside the absolute time limit for appealing but it seemed the ‘scrutiny’ process used on migration uncovered almost nothing relevant and was probably based on rather skimpy records from an old IB/IS claim
The DWP are generally open to late appeals, provided you have something; eg
Lack of legal advice
Client failure to understand between wrag and sg and its implcations
Equitable and reasonable to allow appeal
Prospect of success
Having a CPN indicates MH conditions which are equally a ground
The DWP are generally open to late appeals, provided you have something; eg
Lack of legal advice
Client failure to understand between wrag and sg and its implcations
Equitable and reasonable to allow appeal
Prospect of success
Having a CPN indicates MH conditions which are equally a ground
It won’t be an late appeal though, it will be a late mandatory reconsideration.
I’ve found they’ve been surprisingly amenable to accepting late mandys. I’ve had a few recent ones go through with no problems.
I’d request a late mandy if it were me.
I think this is a brilliant question pre MR days a late appeal would be the best route as they were nearly always accepted if lodged within the 13 month time limit and the claimant gets maximum arrears. However, its not clear if the same benevolent approach will be extended to MRs? Officially it should do, but what if you’re refused an extension to the time limit? Its not clear that you would have a right of appeal against this decision (although its debatable). However, you could then try an out of time revision on the grounds of mistake of material fact and then appeal/MR any refusal.
Personally, I would try the out of time MR first, as the original decision was wrong, then take it from there. Incidently the Disbility Rights website is good on this issue.
I can see nothing wrong following this line of argument: “As you can see from the CPN’s report my client should clearly have been placed in the Support group. I would like to request a ‘mandatory reconsideration’ to revise your decision. I feel that there it would be reasonable to accept this request late for the following reasons…...... If, however, you feel unable to accept a late request to revise your original decision please treat this letter as a request to superseed it.”