We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Fact - You're unlikely to win a Mandatory Reconsideration
gbhxu
Posts: 436 Forumite
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
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
0
Comments
-
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.0 -
So you have a 1 in 5 chance of success.0
-
So you have a 1 in 5 chance of success.
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.0 -
-
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.0
-
It's only real impact in the majority of cases was to extend the time it takes to resolve appeals.
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.Alice Holt Forest situated some 4 miles south of Farnham forms the most northerly gateway to the South Downs National Park.0 -
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.
In addition, with ESA, the ESA, JSA, ESA journey makes it even more offputting0 -
Alice_Holt wrote: »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.
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.0 -
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.
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.0 -
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.
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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455K Spending & Discounts
- 246.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178K Life & Family
- 260.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards