Fact - You're unlikely to win a Mandatory Reconsideration

gbhxu
gbhxu Posts: 332 Forumite
Photogenic First Post Name Dropper First Anniversary
in Benefits & tax credits
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

Comments

  • TELLIT01
    TELLIT01 Posts: 16,472 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper PPI Party Pooper
    edited 17 May 2017 at 6:58PM
    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.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Newbie
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post I've been Money Tipped!
    So you have a 1 in 5 chance of success.
  • TELLIT01
    TELLIT01 Posts: 16,472 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper PPI Party Pooper
    venison wrote: »
    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.
  • Muttleythefrog
    Muttleythefrog Posts: 19,757 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    venison wrote: »
    So you have a 1 in 5 chance of success.
    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
    TELLIT01 Posts: 16,472 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper PPI Party Pooper
    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
    Alice_Holt Posts: 5,949 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    TELLIT01 wrote: »
    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.
  • NeilCr
    NeilCr Posts: 4,430 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    TELLIT01 wrote: »
    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 offputting
  • TELLIT01
    TELLIT01 Posts: 16,472 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper PPI Party Pooper
    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.
  • Mersey_2
    Mersey_2 Posts: 1,679 Forumite
    TELLIT01 wrote: »
    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.
  • TELLIT01
    TELLIT01 Posts: 16,472 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper PPI Party Pooper
    Mersey wrote: »
    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.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards