DWP have 80% target for Mandatory Reconsideration to be the same as Original Decision

[speedfreek 1,398]

Currently running at 87% of decisions same as original DM decision because....

 

This folks is why you should ignore the DWP and appeal!

 

I'll give DWP DMs the benefit of the doubt here as although my last MR for DLA was refused.... the Mandatory Reconsideration DM actually didn't write against my new lower award but how I could win at appeal!

 

Bizarre but true !

 

Reddit thread

 

Rightsnet thread https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/11271/

 

Dear Brian Tanning,

 

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request received on 20 April 2017. You asked for:-

 

Please provide any Key Performance Indicators which apply to DWP around the handling of

mandatory reconsiderations of benefit decisions, especially turnaround time.

 

Please also provide historic performance against these indicators.

 

DWP Response

 

The key measures which are used by the Department for Work and Pensions to monitor

Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) performance are:

 

a) 90% to be cleared within target.

 

b) 80% of the original decisions are to be upheld.

 

The performance measures for April 2016 - March 2017 are:

 

% MR Cleared within target = 70.2%

 

% MR Original Decision Upheld = 87.5%

Notes:

Upheld - percentage of MRs where the decisions have either been unfavourable to the claimant

or where the previous decision has been maintained.

 

Sources:

RDA/RAA 60209 & 60205 reports for DLA/AA,

Pensions computer system for Pension Age,

SAS Business Analytics software for CMG,

Decision Making and Appeals Case Recorder (DMACR) for Working Age benefits.

 

The above data sources are Departmental performance management, data capture and

reporting tools. This type of internal management information does not form part of the official

statistics outputs that are released by the Department in accordance with the UK Statistics

Authority’s Code of Practice.

 

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number

above.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

DWP Central FoI Team

[Nystagmite 1,122]

I wonder how much money this is costing them? Certainly much more than the 20% they wanted to save...

[reallymadwoman 2,266]

So if you ask for Mandatory Reconsideration you currently have 13% chance of success, with DWP only meeting their turnaround target (which isn't actually specified and is probably quite a lot longer than the claimant wants) 70% of the time. Then there's the wait for the appeal when you have a much better 67% chance of succeeding, finally proving that the whole MR process is just a delaying tactic with the additional bonus of at least some claimants giving up/dying before they get to appeal.

 

Speechless.

[speedfreek 1,398]

You are also highly likely to get put through a DWP DM review after lodging your appeal with the Tribunal Service.

 

So the DWP have 3 bites at the cherry before you even get near a 1st Tier Tribunal hearing.

 

My 1st ESA appeal in 2010 was decided and withdrawn by the DWP 6 months after being lodged with the Tribunal Service.

 

My latest one lodged Jan 2017 - the Tribunal Service wrote saying it had also been pulled by the DWP with a more favourable decision mid February. The DWP still haven't bothered to let me know what that decision is yet - although I got a text last week telling me they had received my WCA decision and not send any more fit notes.

[tommy456 151]

I wonder how much money this is costing them? Certainly much more than the 20% they wanted to save...

Of course it's costing them a lot more than they are saving I would say the amount of money that they are paying private companies like Capita, Atos, and Maxi farce for these woeful assessments they use to deny benefits to the majority of Britain's sick & disabled alone would be costing a damn sight more

[speedfreek 1,398]

So if you ask for Mandatory Reconsideration you currently have 13% chance of success, with DWP only meeting their turnaround target (which isn't actually specified and is probably quite a lot longer than the claimant wants) 70% of the time. Then there's the wait for the appeal when you have a much better 67% chance of succeeding, finally proving that the whole MR process is just a delaying tactic with the additional bonus of at least some claimants giving up/dying before they get to appeal.

 

Speechless.

 

How about this then?

 

WCA July - Decision Notice dated end of September zero points.

 

MR sent off immediately...... 1st DWP contact is a text dated December saying they will respond by the 29th of Dec

 

MR decision notice received Jan no change.

 

Appeal lodged via SSC1 form within 7 days - TS Service withdraw my appeal mid Feb due to DWP decision in my favour.

 

Except for the text messages telling me not to send more fit notes and they have the results of my WCA received last week nada nowt nothing and am still waiting to hear what this decision was in February

 

My not claiming Universal Credit (DLA plus nil income Local Housing Allowance claim) due to the loss of SDP claiming UC would entail during my MR might have thrown em. Plus my SAR they refuse to answer about re-working my WCA report for "statistical variances" but still 9 months on.....

 

Time for tea said Zebedee

[citizenB 10,105]

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2017/05/16/dwp-sets-80-benefit-appeal-rejection-target

 

Interesting article

 

'Outrageous interference' with rule of law as DWP sets 80% benefit appeal rejection target

 

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has set staff a target of upholding 80% of the benefit decisions that they are asked to reassess, it has been revealed.

 

In response to a Freedom of Information request, the department stated that a key measure used to monitor the performance of Mandatory Reconsiderations (the first step in the benefits appeals process) is that 80% of the original decisions are to be upheld.

 

It went on to confirm that between April 2016 - March 2017 staff exceeded that target with 87.5% of original decisions being maintained.

 

Henry Brooke, a former judge and member of the Access to Justice Commission, wrote in a blog post yesterday that the revelations appeared to be an "absolutely outrageous interference" with the rule of law.

 

 

Last year, the National Association of Welfare Rights Advisors (NAWRA) submitted evidence to a consultation by the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) on decision-making in the DWP. It included widespread concerns that mandatory reconsiderations add "confusion, obstruction and complexity to the appeals processes" with "little or no added value compared with the older automatic revision process".

 

Disability Rights UK (DR UK) said that disabled people should not be delayed access to justice.

 

"That the DWP has an actual target for refusing benefit decision reconsideration requests is bad enough, but that it has set and exceeded a figure of 80% is appalling," Ken Butler, a welfare benefit adviser at DR UK, said.

[citizenB 10,105]

Some older articles from the same outlet, but still relevant I think.

 

Tactics used by the DWP to prevent claimants seeking reviews of rejections !

 

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/08/12/how-the-dwp-stacks-the-odds-against-benefit-claimants

[Nystagmite 1,122]

The person doing the MR isn't even medically trained. Given some of the evidence some people send off, how can a non-medically trained person come to the right decision?

[citizenB 10,105]

The person doing the MR isn't even medically trained. Given some of the evidence some people send off, how can a non-medically trained person come to the right decision?

 

Indeed - it is hard to believe that the lady in the article below (from 2016) would have been denied benefits if the person who reviewed her case had been medically trained ?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/07/dwp-told-dawn-amos-not-ill-enough-for-benefit-day-she-died

 

DWP told woman she was not ill enough for benefit on day she died

 

The DWP reviewed her claim based on her treatment, medication, test results and symptoms, and wrote to inform her that she was not ill enough to receive the weekly benefit, which amounted to £55.10 or £82.30 – depending on how often care was needed in a 24-hour period.

 

The DWP said the decision had been made using the information from her claim form and from her doctor about six months earlier. The letter said: “I consider this information to be the most suitable available and enough to decide how much help you need.”

 

The DWP wrote its letter on the day Amos’s husband agreed that doctors should turn off her life support machine at Broomfield hospital in Chelmsford.