Mandatory Reconsideration: One year on
This survey was carried out over December 2014. It looks at the impact of the changes
implemented by DWP in an attempt to improve the workings of the Mandatory
Reconsideration process. As the majority of these changes were bought in from June
2014, the survey asked Citizens Advice advisers to compare the six months from
January to June with the six month period from June to December in order to determine
the true impact of these changes on our clients.
A total of 188 staff and volunteers representing 145 bureaux across the England and
Wales responded to this survey.
Numbers and types of reconsideration:
35% of respondents had seen more mandatory reconsideration cases over the past six
months than in the previous six months
53% of respondents had seen more or considerably more clients regarding contesting a
fit for work decision, while 43% had seen more or considerably more clients contesting a
WRAG group allocation over the past six months than in the previous six months
Communications:
DWP have become better at consistently using the term ‘mandatory reconsideration’ –
61% of respondents felt they had used this ‘more’ or ‘a lot more’ over the past six months
than in the previous six months. However, 34% of respondents had not seen a change
and 5% felt that the term was used less consistently.
The most common method of communication over the past six months – as highlighted
by 48% of respondents - has been a combination of phone and postal contact. While it is
positive to see that multiple methods of communication are being attempted, this
suggests that DWP have been unable to fully integrate (or persuade claimants to take up
the option of) text message communication as introduced during the spring. Only 13% of
respondents indicated that the most common method of communication involved either
just text messaging or text messaging as part of a range of communications methods
used.
DWP has also indicated that measures have been implemented to improve the
frequency, type and tone of communications to claimants around MR, and also to make
it easier for claimants to contact DWP about their claim. These changes do not seem to
have had the desired impact.
 46% of respondents felt that the frequency of communication had not improved
for their clients (in fact, 44% felt it had got ‘a bit’ or ‘a lot’ worse),
 53% felt that the method of communication used had remained unchanged (35%
‘a bit’/’a lot’ worse)
 46% felt the tone of communications had remained unchanged (50% ’a bit’/’a lot’
worse).
 The situation was even poorer with regard to the ability of claimants to contact
DWP – 67% of respondents felt his had got ‘a bit’ or ’a lot’ worse over the period
Jun – Dec as compared to the previous six months.
Overall, 56% of respondents ‘somewhat’ or ‘completely’ disagreed that ‘people
understand the mandatory reconsideration process better than they did six months ago’.
Just 2% of respondents completely agreed with that that statement.
Embargoed until 12.00pm 21/01/2015
(please don’t publicised outside the service until then)
Claiming JSA during reconsideration:
DWP has stated that all ESA claimants should be able to claim JSA during mandatory
reconsideration, and that early examples of claimants being informed they did not
qualify, or being held to conditionality unsuited to their condition, have been dealt with
through improved training. 34% of our advisers felt that, in fact, more claimants had been
incorrectly informed they were ineligible for JSA since June. Another 46% felt that the
advice on eligibility had not changed at all. This means that only 12% of respondents felt
that they had seen an increase in claimants facing MR who had decided that JSA was an
appropriate benefit to claim during their reconsideration.
Overall, 54% of respondents ‘somewhat’ or ‘completely’ disagreed that ‘in the last six
months, conditionality for those claiming JSA has been appropriately altered and their
condition has been taken into account.’ Only 1% of respondents completely agreed with
this statement.
Delays:
Recent DWP statistics suggest that the average length of time taken from request to
decision has decreased. However, this does not give the whole picture – between
January and September 2014, the number of reconsiderations dealt with in under 7 days
decreased from 62% to 32%, the number taking over 2 weeks (the recommended
maximum time for an MR) increasing from 28% to 56%.
Over the first year of the operation of MR there were 44,100 people who spent more
than 30 days waiting, without access to assessment rate payments, for a decision. In Oct
14, 49% (9,400 people) of claimants still waited over 15 days. (these figures don’t
include outstanding claims).
Our survey found that 65% of respondents feel that delays were ‘more’ or ‘much more’ of
an issue in the latter half of 2014 – with the average time taken for an MR at 6-8 weeks
and the longest cases taking 12-14 weeks. Only 20% of respondents ‘somewhat’ or
‘completely’ agreed with the statement ‘In the last six months, mandatory reconsideration
decisions have been reached in a more timely fashion.’
Cost:
Citizens Advice saw 8,530 people about mandatory reconsideration over Q1 and Q2 of
2014. 2,740 (32%) of these people also reported being left without funds due to their
reconsideration. If we were to extrapolate this to the 90,500 Mandatory Reconsideration
requests over the same time period this would suggest that up to 28,960 people were left
without funds – often for periods of between 6 and 8 weeks - over this time.1
Where claimants are able to take up the option of claiming JSA, we estimate the
administrative costs of moving benefit at upwards of £160 per claimant – suggesting that
if all claimants requesting a mandatory reconsideration were able to take up JSA
this would cost the taxpayer up to £28.9 million each year in administration costs.
1
DWP caveat their statistics by saying that they are about requests, not decisions, and hence the 90,500
figure may include some people more than once – however MR regulations suggest that it would be almost
impossible to have two reconsiderations for the same benefit at the same time, so use of this figure appears
justified
Embargoed until 12.00pm 21/01/2015
(please don’t publicised outside the service until then)
Survey Findings: Full Data
Section A: General changes in the last six months
There have been:
Considerably more mandatory reconsiderations
More mandatory reconsiderations
About the same
Fewer mandatory reconsiderations
Considerably fewer mandatory reconsiderations
N=142
23.9%
34.5%
33.8%
7.7%
0.0%
There have been:
Considerably more people contesting a fit-for-work decision
More people contesting a fit-for work decision
About the same
Fewer people contesting a fit-for-work decision
Considerably fewer people contesting a fit-for-work decision
N=140
18.6%
34.3%
34.3%
12.1%
0.7%
There have been:
Considerably more people contesting a WRAG group decision
More people contesting a WRAG group decision
About the same
Fewer people contesting a WRAG group decision
Considerably fewer people contesting a WRAG group decision
N=136
10.3%
32.4%
48.5%
8.8%
0.0%
Section B: Communications in the last six months
When communicating with people, DWP have used the term
'mandatory reconsideration':
A lot more
More
About the same
Less
A lot less
32.0%
28.8%
34.4%
4.8%
0.0%
The most common method for communication has been
Phone and post
Phone only
Post only
Phone and text message
Post and text message
Text message only
No communication
N=120
48.3%
11.7%
25.0%
7.5%
4.2%
0.8%
2.5%
N=125
Over the past six months, as compared with the six months previously, have your
clients found, in relation to mandatory reconsideration:
a lot
a bit
the
a bit
a lot
better better same
worse worse
the frequency of communication from
46%
0%
10%
31%
13%
DWP (n=115)
53%
the type of communication (ie text, phone,
1%
11%
25%
10%
Embargoed until 12.00pm 21/01/2015
(please don’t publicised outside the service until then)
letter) from DWP (n=116)
the tone of communication from DWP
(n=114)
their ability to contact DWP (n=115)
0%
4%
46%
37%
13%
1%
4%
28%
32%
35%
To what extent do you agree with the following statement?
“People understand the mandatory reconsideration process better
than they did six months ago.”
Completely agree
Somewhat agree
Don’t know
Somewhat disagree
Completely disagree
N=125
1.6%
25.6%
16.8%
31.2%
24.8%
Section C: Claiming JSA in the last six months
The amount of people who have been told they cannot claim JSA
during MR has:
Fallen considerably
Fallen
Stayed the same
Risen
Risen considerably
2.7%
18.2%
45.5%
30.0%
3.6%
The amount of people who have decided not to claim JSA has:
Fallen considerably
Fallen
Stayed the same
Risen
Risen considerably
N=113
1.8%
10.6%
52.2%
32.7%
2.7%
To what extent do you agree with the following statement? “In the
last six months, conditionality for those claiming JSA has been
appropriately altered and their condition has been taken into
account.”
Completely agree
Somewhat agree
Don’t know
Somewhat disagree
Completely disagree
N=110
N=117
0.9%
12.8%
32.5%
34.2%
19.7%
Section D: Delays in the last six months
Delays in the MR process are:
Much more of an issue
More of an issue
About the same
Less of an issue
Much less of an issue
N=108
34.3%
30.6%
24.1%
11.1%
0.0%
Embargoed until 12.00pm 21/01/2015
(please don’t publicised outside the service until then)
The average mandatory reconsideration delay is
3-5 weeks
6-8 weeks
9-11 weeks
12-14 weeks
Other- please specify
The longest mandatory reconsideration delay has been
3-5 weeks
6-8 weeks
9-11 weeks
12-14 weeks
Other- please specify
To what extent do you agree with the following statement? “In the
last six months, mandatory reconsideration decisions have been
reached in a more timely fashion.”
Completely agree
Somewhat agree
Don’t know
Somewhat disagree
Completely disagree
N=102
14.7%
39.2%
18.6%
9.8%
17.6%
N=98
2.0%
13.3%
18.4%
34.7%
31.6%
N=106
0.9%
18.9%
17.9%
39.6%
22.6%