Page 77 - Reforming Benefits Decision-Making

III. ROUTES OF REDRESS

“When claimants contest assessments that they consider to be wrong, there is a clear
sense that the Orwellian named anonymous ‘decision-maker’ rarely varies the
approach. Similarly the requirement that before appealing a disability assessment to
a tribunal a phase of mandatory reconsideration must take place is considered by
205
many observers to be little more than a delaying tactic.”

“Didn’t have the strength or energy to face appeal. The whole application and
assessment is stressful making my symptoms worse and me more unwell. I couldn’t
206
put my body through any further stress.”

3.1 In Chapter 2 we outlined our concerns with a number of aspects of
DWP/DfC first instance decision-making. It is important that claimants who
do not consider that they received the correct decision first time round are
able to effectively challenge those decisions through a system of redress that
is accessible, fair and efficient.

3.2 Currently, if a claimant disagrees with a decision about their benefits, they
must go through a two-stage process to challenge it. First, they have to ask the
DWP or DfC to look at the decision again in a process called mandatory
reconsideration. This involves the decision being looked at by a different
decision-maker within the DWP or DfC to the one who originally considered
it. The decision-maker can decide to change the original decision, which may
or may not result in a change to the claimant’s benefits entitlement. For
example, the decision-maker may change the points awarded on a PIP
assessment, but the claimant may still not score enough to qualify for the
mobility and/or daily living component.

3.3 If a claimant disagrees with the outcome of the mandatory reconsideration,
they can appeal the decision to the independent FTT (SSCS) in Great Britain
or Appeals Service in Northern Ireland. Claimants must go through the

205 P. Alston, ‘Statement on Visit to the United Kingdom’ (see n. 1 above) p.6.
206 Z2K “#PeopleBeforeProcess’ (see n. 57 above) p.4.

68