Mandatory reconsideration

[osdset]

I'm hoping perhaps antone or Mr P can answer this.

 

As per my current sanction saga, I'm now considering going for a mandatory reconsideration because the one month response time is up on the 10th. I no longer have any confidence that the assurances of a resolve to the problem I've been getting from the WP liaison officer at JCP will amount to anything. However I don't want to burn all the bridges so, would asking for the reconsideration prejudice anything that the liaison officer might have achieved?

[antone]

Do you mean that the one month deadline for recon/appeal expires on the 10th?

 

If so, I can't see what harm submitting your recon request would do - the WP liaison officer should understand that you can't wait around indefinitely for this to be resolved, and you certainly don't want to jeopardise your appeal rights if she's not able to sort it.

[id6052]

I would agree that you should go for MR prior to time expiring

[osdset]

Do you mean that the one month deadline for recon/appeal expires on the 10th?

 

Yes, I was told to hold off with a reconsideration before Xmas pending the Liaison officers intervention, but as I said above it's going nowhere.

[antone]

Yes, I was told to hold off with a reconsideration before Xmas pending the Liaison officers intervention, but as I said above it's going nowhere.

 

I suppose you were advised to hold fire on the recon because it might confuse matters to have two people working the issue, especially since those two people may not work in the same office, or even the same city. Still, you shouldn't risk losing your appeal rights over that.

 

If you really wanted to be polite, you could speak to the WP liaison and point out to her that you will be making a recon request if this isn't resolved by, say, the 8th. Not as a threat, you understand, but still, you need to look out for your own rights here.

[osdset]

I suppose you were advised to hold fire on the recon because it might confuse matters to have two people working the issue, especially since those two people may not work in the same office, or even the same city. Still, you shouldn't risk losing your appeal rights over that.

 

If you really wanted to be polite, you could speak to the WP liaison and point out to her that you will be making a recon request if this isn't resolved by, say, the 8th. Not as a threat, you understand, but still, you need to look out for your own rights here.

 

Which is what I have in mind to do. I don't want to ruffle her feathers overmuch as she is 'ever so polite,' so much so that I think she may be a bit pensive with regard to asserting any authority she has. That's pure guesswork on my part, she might be a holy terror for all I know, somehow I doubt it though.

[Mr.P]

There are time limits on initiating the appeals process, so I'd suggest putting the wheels in to motion on Monday. By the sounds of it, even if the WP liaison officer has the temperament of a pit bull, Seetec are just laughing in her face. In seeking a mandatory consideration now, you can exhaust the DWP appeals process and lodge a formal complaint with the I.C.E. (if it ever gets to that stage).

 

Should it ever get as far as the I.C.E. include Seetec in the complaint and it will cost them up to £5000 for the honour.

[osdset]

There are time limits on initiating the appeals process, so I'd suggest putting the wheels in to motion on Monday. By the sounds of it, even if the WP liaison officer has the temperament of a pit bull, Seetec are just laughing in her face. In seeking a mandatory consideration now, you can exhaust the DWP appeals process and lodge a formal complaint with the I.C.E. (if it ever gets to that stage).

Should it ever get as far as the I.C.E. include Seetec in the complaint and it will cost them up to £5000 for the honour.

 

Well the good news is, I've had verbal confirmation from JCP and more importantly, Annesley LM DMA (who imposed the sanction originally) that sanction has been revised in my favour. I was told this as soon as I asked for a reconsideration, I'm still going through with it though to be on the safe side.

 

Regarding Seetec, It's now my all consuming purpose to do whatever I can to cause them a much grief as is humanly possible.

 

The more I think on it the more convinced I am that the timing of the letter leading to the sanction was contrived to cause me as much distress as possible, there is extremely bad blood between myself and Seetec's manager who is a thoroughly nasty piece of work. I reckon he was banking on the sanction hitting me at Christmas and that the holidays would frustrate any attempt to get it overturned.

Edited January 6, 2014 by osdset

[jasta11]

Regarding Seetec, It's now my all consuming purpose to do whatever I can to cause them a much grief as is humanly possible.

 

Best way is to keep abreast of the WP guidance and complain to the DWP each and every time they violate it - if they're as bad as Ingeus were, you're going to be writing a lot of complaints! Zero tolerance, just as they'd show to us.

[osdset]

Best way is to keep abreast of the WP guidance and complain to the DWP each and every time they violate it - if they're as bad as Ingeus were, you're going to be writing a lot of complaints! Zero tolerance, just as they'd show to us.

 

I should not have been referred to the WP in the first place, it was a clanger dropped by JCP.

Seetec have been instructed to never contact me again regarding anything to do with the Work Programme, We'll see.

[osdset]

Good grief! I just found out that the sanction was lifted on the 19th December, however the office dealing with reinstating payment only got the message today.

 

Isn't it funny how benefits are effected from the day the sanction was issued, notifications are emailed straight away to ensure the claimant gets penalised as soon as possible. But reinstating payment after a sanction has been overturned takes 19 days, even accounting for the holiday period that's an unacceptable timescale.