Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • gbhxu
    • By gbhxu 17th May 17, 3:19 PM
    • 52Posts
    • 14Thanks
    gbhxu
    Fact - You're unlikely to win a Mandatory Reconsideration
    • #1
    • 17th May 17, 3:19 PM
    Fact - You're unlikely to win a Mandatory Reconsideration 17th May 17 at 3:19 PM
    Yes, it's true.

    The DWP have set an 80% target to uphold original decisions when you apply for Mandatory Reconsideration.

    In the past year it was actually 87.5!

    http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2017/05/16/dwp-sets-80-benefit-appeal-rejection-target
Page 1
    • TELLIT01
    • By TELLIT01 17th May 17, 4:02 PM
    • 3,611 Posts
    • 3,681 Thanks
    TELLIT01
    • #2
    • 17th May 17, 4:02 PM
    • #2
    • 17th May 17, 4:02 PM
    So even on your figures DWP staff overturn over 10% of decisions on MR. That's actually a higher figure than I expected as DMs make the original decision and a different DM does the reconsideration.

    Thinking about it, there should be an expectation of the original decision being upheld 100% of the time, or very near that. After all the correct decision should be made from the outset.
    Last edited by TELLIT01; 17-05-2017 at 6:58 PM.
    • venison
    • By venison 17th May 17, 8:29 PM
    • 1,003 Posts
    • 1,064 Thanks
    venison
    • #3
    • 17th May 17, 8:29 PM
    • #3
    • 17th May 17, 8:29 PM
    So you have a 1 in 5 chance of success.
    #WeStandTogether
    • TELLIT01
    • By TELLIT01 17th May 17, 10:06 PM
    • 3,611 Posts
    • 3,681 Thanks
    TELLIT01
    • #4
    • 17th May 17, 10:06 PM
    • #4
    • 17th May 17, 10:06 PM
    So you have a 1 in 5 chance of success.
    Originally posted by venison
    That's at the Mandatory Recon stage. Appeal is entirely different. I'm sure somebody can come up with the stats for successful appeals. From my experience at DWP, those responsible for the appeal decisions don't always stick to ensuring the rules and regs have been correctly applied. If they don't like the rules and regs it's not unknown for an appeal to succeed despite them being correctly interpreted and applied at the original decision.
    • Muttleythefrog
    • By Muttleythefrog 17th May 17, 10:44 PM
    • 10,067 Posts
    • 18,586 Thanks
    Muttleythefrog
    • #5
    • 17th May 17, 10:44 PM
    • #5
    • 17th May 17, 10:44 PM
    So you have a 1 in 5 chance of success.
    Originally posted by venison
    More like 1 in 8 judging from latest data... but as above... at appeal much greater chances.
    "Do not attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence" - rogerblack
    • TELLIT01
    • By TELLIT01 18th May 17, 8:07 AM
    • 3,611 Posts
    • 3,681 Thanks
    TELLIT01
    • #6
    • 18th May 17, 8:07 AM
    • #6
    • 18th May 17, 8:07 AM
    Sad but true - Mandatory Recon was introduced following an independent review of ESA a few years ago. The idea was that once a claimant had spoken to a DM and had the reasons explained they would accept the decision and go away but that didn't happen. It's only real impact in the majority of cases was to extend the time it takes to resolve appeals.
    • Alice Holt
    • By Alice Holt 18th May 17, 5:55 PM
    • 1,216 Posts
    • 1,298 Thanks
    Alice Holt
    • #7
    • 18th May 17, 5:55 PM
    • #7
    • 18th May 17, 5:55 PM
    It's only real impact in the majority of cases was to extend the time it takes to resolve appeals.
    Originally posted by TELLIT01
    And, of course, making it a two stage process rather the previous one stage process (GL 24) means that many lose heart at the MR stage, and won't take their appeal onto a tribunal.
    • NeilCr
    • By NeilCr 18th May 17, 6:32 PM
    • 856 Posts
    • 890 Thanks
    NeilCr
    • #8
    • 18th May 17, 6:32 PM
    • #8
    • 18th May 17, 6:32 PM
    Sad but true - Mandatory Recon was introduced following an independent review of ESA a few years ago. The idea was that once a claimant had spoken to a DM and had the reasons explained they would accept the decision and go away but that didn't happen. It's only real impact in the majority of cases was to extend the time it takes to resolve appeals.
    Originally posted by TELLIT01
    In addition, with ESA, the ESA, JSA, ESA journey makes it even more offputting
    • TELLIT01
    • By TELLIT01 18th May 17, 7:32 PM
    • 3,611 Posts
    • 3,681 Thanks
    TELLIT01
    • #9
    • 18th May 17, 7:32 PM
    • #9
    • 18th May 17, 7:32 PM
    And, of course, making it a two stage process rather the previous one stage process (GL 24) means that many lose heart at the MR stage, and won't take their appeal onto a tribunal.
    Originally posted by Alice Holt
    I should have said the 'real impact' rather than 'only real impact'. As you say, the additional step will certainly deter some people and sadly it's more likely to deter those who are most unwell and can't cope with the additional stress.
    • Mersey
    • By Mersey 19th May 17, 6:24 PM
    • 1,482 Posts
    • 708 Thanks
    Mersey
    So even on your figures DWP staff overturn over 10% of decisions on MR. That's actually a higher figure than I expected as DMs make the original decision and a different DM does the reconsideration.

    Thinking about it, there should be an expectation of the original decision being upheld 100% of the time, or very near that. After all the correct decision should be made from the outset.
    Originally posted by TELLIT01


    That really is either a DWP view of the world or a very naïve rosy one.


    If the correct decision was made from the outset almost half of appeals wouldn't succeed in some areas or need to ever be submitted.
    Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.
    • TELLIT01
    • By TELLIT01 19th May 17, 6:58 PM
    • 3,611 Posts
    • 3,681 Thanks
    TELLIT01
    If the correct decision was made from the outset almost half of appeals wouldn't succeed in some areas or need to ever be submitted.
    Originally posted by Mersey
    That's exactly the point I'm making. If DWP only expect to uphold 80% of their original decisions, it suggests that the assessment system isn't working as it should. Nobody will ever get it right 100% of the time, but the proportion who need to appeal should be a lot lower than it is.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,643Posts Today

6,568Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin