Good morning

A recent case involving a vulnerable Universal Credit claimant highlights a practical problem with missing decision notices. Where DWP denies a claim, stops payments for a period or fully terminates an award without issuing a proper notice, the claimant may be left unsure whether to seek Mandatory Reconsideration or appeal and may be unable to access the normal appeal route.

Mr M’s housing costs were stopped for two consecutive months after he missed a telephone review with a DWP officer. He had serious health problems, repeated hospital appointments, sight loss in one eye and no working telephone. His landlord helped submit a detailed reconsideration request and asked DWP to restore the missing housing costs and use a more suitable method of contact with him to avoid the same situation occurring.

The problem

Despite repeated reminders and escalation, no substantive decision was issued, and no MR Notice was produced. This left the case in limbo. The online tribunal appeal process normally requires the claimant to confirm that an MR Notice has been received, provide the date and upload a copy of the notice.

The result is a procedural dead-end: DWP has not revised the decision, but the claimant cannot appeal because the document needed to start the appeal has not been issued.

Wider concern

Welfare Rights and Financial Inclusion advisers report similar delays in different areas, including long waits for reconsideration decisions, responses from Decision Makers and MR Notices. In practice, these delays can prevent claimants from exercising their statutory right of challenge and frustrate the appeal being progressed.

The problem is particularly serious for vulnerable claimants, including those with health difficulties, communication barriers or limited digital access.

Tribunal intervention

After months without progress, HMCTS was asked to refer the matter to a Tribunal Legal Officer or Judge. The key argument was that DWP had failed to properly notify the claimant of the cessation to payments, received a reconsideration request but had neither revised the decision nor issued an MR Notice, leaving the claimant unable to use the normal appeal process.

Upper Tribunal case law may assist where DWP failures around notification, reasons or appeal rights risk depriving a claimant of access to justice. However, the correct route will depend on the facts and the authority relied upon.

Case-law point: PP v SSWP

In PP v SSWP (UC) [2020] UKUT 0109 (AAC), the claimant appealed directly against a Universal Credit claim-closure decision without first requesting a Mandatory Reconsideration. The Upper Tribunal held that the usual requirement to obtain a Mandatory Reconsideration only applied where the claimant had been given the required informative notice. As no such notice had been given, the claimant had a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal without first applying for Mandatory Reconsideration.

The facts are useful by analogy. Mr P’s UC claim was closed after he did not book an appointment, and the journal entry simply stated that the claim had been closed. The First-tier Tribunal rejected his appeal because no MR Notice was attached, but the Upper Tribunal found that the appeal could proceed because the necessary notice explaining manadatory reconsideration and appeal rights had not been issued.

This supports the argument in Mr M’s case. Although Mr M had already been receiving UC housing costs, those payments were then stopped for two consecutive months, and there is no evidence that he was formally notified of the decision, given reasons, or spoken to about the right to seek Mandatory Reconsideration. If DWP has not issued a notice meeting the required standards, advisers may be able to argue that the absence of an MR Notice should not bar access to the tribunal.

Practical steps for advisers

Where an MR request has been submitted, and no response is received, advisers should:

  1. Keep evidence of the original MR request and all follow-up correspondence.
  2. Escalate through Partnership Managers or other appropriate contacts.
  3. Ask DWP to confirm whether a decision has been made and whether an MR Notice will be issued.
  4. Consider whether referral to HMCTS or tribunal intervention is appropriate where delay blocks access to an appeal.
  5. Review relevant Upper Tribunal authorities on defective notification and jurisdiction.

Our view

DWP should return to the days of issuing statutory notices that are complaint with the law. No claimant should be denied the right to challenge adverse decisions or lose the right of appeal simply because DWP has failed to issue a decision letter or provide an MR Notice. Where administrative delay prevents access to the appeal system, there must be an effective remedy. In Mr Ms case hes 7 months down the line with no progress achieved because DWP simply ignored him and his landlord.

These cases raise important questions about access to justice and the protection of vulnerable claimants whose disputes become trapped in administrative backlogs.

If you require any clarification or support with a similar situation, please contact bill@ucadvice.co.uk or phone 07733 080 389

Regards

Bill Irvine

UC Advice & Advocacy Ltd

www.ucadvice.co.uk