× Members

Mandatory reconsideration

More
5 years 6 months ago #217812 by frmarcus
Replied by frmarcus on topic Mandatory reconsideration
Fls: If you're unclear what you could/should be appealing, that logically suggests you're unsure why you got any points/award (if you did), and, therefore, why that award should at least be maintained if DWP were minded to remove points and you had to challenge THAT. And in the likely event that MR fails and you would have to go to appeal, you'll have to be able to articulate there why you disagree with the scoring (though it's unlikely you'll lose points).

Unfortunately there's no shortcut to reading the descriptors, understanding (from the likes of this site) what they mean, then determining how you believe you should be scored for each one. Knowing that you need 8 points for a standard award and 12 for an enhanced in each of the components of Daily Living and Mobility, you can assess for yourself the quantum and nature of disagreement (if any) you have with DWP's scoring (as shown in your decision letter).

If you're reasonably potentially in reach of a standard or enhanced threshold - that is, if you were scored as you reasonably believe you should have been and can evidence, and if so would reach that threshold - it's worth challenging. But if you got points that you think could readily be challenged - that is, that you were fortunate to get - and you could lose them, and in doing so DROP a threshold, that needs caution.

In my case, for example, I believe I was scored accurately in most descriptors - that is, what I would have awarded myself - so am not seeking any uplift in the ones I scored points for; but there were three descriptors I was given no points for, where I believe I should probably have scored two in each of two (definitely two in one), and 10 for Planning a journey. Two DL points would get me enhanced instead of standard and 10 for Mobility would get me enhanced from nothing. So I'm unlikely to lose from challenging as I have 10 DL points, but someone with a different points configuration could. I am also confident in my justification, which is reasonably needed for appeal, as if you're unsure that or why you should get more points, why wouldn't a decision maker be?

In other words, an MR or appeal isn't quite a no-brainer: there are situations when it would be unwise to do it unless you got no award at all (when you have nothing to lose). Appellants have gone from no points to enhanced (12+) - which is crazy, but there you are. It can seem like a game: one that isn't amusing for the anxious claimant... In my view the Tribunal is much more likely to consider all the evidence (inc medical) and arrive at a lawful conclusion; DWP's assessment is simply not reliable enough: it's rushed and cursory; evidence is ignored because not requested by it; too much reliance is placed on inadequately trained and qualified assessors making snapshot, subjective judgements; and DWP case managers, who make the decision, are not in fact managers but relatively low-grade civil servants who cannot be expected to make often nuanced decisions (and they're clearly instructed to mark down, not up, in the many grey areas they have to adjudicate on to keep the numbers down). The justification of PIP was essentially to reduce 'runaway' cost of DLA by narrowing the goalposts, but the process is chaotic.

Good luck.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: GordonGaryBISCatherineWendyKellygreekqueenpeterKatherineSuper UserjimmckChris
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.