On clients Journal - You already have 2 sanctions at appeal, so we cannot refer a separate new sanction MR occurring 7 months later (3rd) to a DM

On clients journal - You already have 2 sanctions at appeal (seemingly for not applying for two jobs decisions 2023, one of which a website). So we cannot refer a separate new sanction MR (seemingly for missing a WFI) occurring 7 months later (3rd) to a DM.

The above is the gist of the UC journal response from DWP dated 01/05/2024 to the MR submitted 01/05/2024 against the sanction decision 2024.

Edited for typo’s

Response ‘Thank you for the information that has been provided towards your appeal. This will be used and taken into consideration’.

How many times do we have to submit this MR before it is accepted?

The first paragraph on journal ‘F.A.O Work coach, Case Manager, and Decision Maker - Mandatory Reconsideration application against the decision **/05/2024 to sanction me for not attending a claimant commitment appointment **/04/2024 at *******’.

The decision letter is on the journal with a note entry. How difficult can it be for the DWP to make the connection and pass on to a decision maker? 

Its all our client is asking for, so far this has gone on for 6 weeks…...

I’d be sending in an SSCS1 arguing that they have considered the MR request. I’ve not yet failed to get appeals admitted where journal messages or emails from JCP staff saying “no” are in evidence.

Only today HMCTS have admitted an HRT appeal where the journal message said “we did this 6 months ago and we’re not doing another HRT” has been accepted as a refusal to supersede with no MR being undertaken as nobody told them the Mr requirement applies.

It crossed my mind Dan and thanks for the advice. At this stage opted for this approach agreed with client.

See extracts from email to job centre below posted for social policy reasons.

Further to your phone call **/**/2024 ***** and ******** journal entry **/**/2024. Followed by ******‘s journal entry **/**/2024. 

Re: Mandatory Reconsideration application submitted twice **/05/2024 and **/06/2024 against the decision **/05/2024 to sanction ********* for not attending a claimant commitment appointment **/**/2024 at ***pm. See attached decision letter dated **/**/2024 with rights to an MR and the letter dated **/**/2024 ending sanction.

You will note the latter letter has the following ‘* From this we’ve subtracted enough days to stop you having more than three years of sanctions, which is the maximum’. See escalation of user friendly sanctions guidance link - Document Title (parliament.uk) Hence the implications for our client and the urgency, from us to ensure it is actioned i.e. passed onto a decision maker for a decision.

This sanction is a separate sanction not to be confused with the following. A separate High level sanction appeals x 2 lodged - against the decision **/**/2023 confirmed in MRN **/**/2024 - receipt from HMCTS - Appeal reference number: *********.

But as the guidance above demonstrates sanctions run one after another up to a maximum of 1,095 days. Similarly, the guidance below used by Decision Makers. ********* has 3 sanctions. ADM Chapter K1: Sanctions - general principles (publishing.service.gov.uk) - see K1067 example Sally for similarities to *******‘s case.

Please please would you refer the MR against a third separate sanction lodged on the journal twice already to a decision maker as per contents on Journal asap. Leaving a note to that effect on the UC Journal that her MR has been referred to a DM. 

Best wishes

Andy’

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/dorset/eggardon-hill

Edited to include sources cited https://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2024-0442/147._Sanctions_V29.0.pdf and https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1153383/admk1.pdf