Page 80 - Reforming Benefits Decision-Making -(updated - August 2021)

or appeal straight to the Tribunal i.e. without having to go through a
reconsideration or revision first. However, appeals were not lodged directly at
the Tribunal, they were sent to the DWP. On receipt of an appeal, the
decision-maker would reconsider the original decision. There was no legal
requirement for them to do so but this was DWP guidance. If the decision was
revised to the claimant’s advantage the appeal would ‘lapse’ i.e. not proceed
any further. If it was not revised the case progressed to an appeal without the
claimant having to take any further action.

3.7 The stated reasons for the introduction of mandatory reconsideration were as
follows:
215
a) To resolve disputes as early as possible.
b) To reduce unnecessary demand on HMCTS by resolving more disputes
internally.
c) To consider revising a decision where appropriate.
d) To provide a full explanation of the decision.
e) To encourage claimants to identify and provide any additional evidence
that may affect the decision, so that they receive a correct decision at the
earliest opportunity.

3.8 The DWP does not publish data on UC mandatory reconsiderations. However,
it does in respect of PIP and ESA WCAs. These show that when mandatory
216
reconsideration was first introduced, the proportion of decisions that were
being revised in favour of the claimant was incredibly low – between 2015
and 2017 it rarely rose over 15 per cent for ESA WCAs, whilst for PIP it
hovered around the high teens, early twenties until mid-2018. However, this
has gradually increased. The DWP introduced a new operational approach to
mandatory reconsideration in 2019, proactively contacting claimants to collect
217
further oral or written evidence.

215 DWP, Appeals Reform: An introduction (2013) p. 4.
216 There is also some mandatory reconsideration data available in respect of ESA and UC live service
sanctions decision on Stat-Xplore.
217 DWP, ‘PIP Statistics to January 2021’ (see n. 2 above).

71