Is this a request for a mandatory reconsideration?

Hello,

This might be tenuous but thought I’d give it a try and was wondering if there was any case law out there regarding it:

Client went through health journey with UC and was found to have LCW. 3 weeks later client wrote the following on the UC journal:

“I have been signed off to look for work I was told my money should be going up, can I find out when this is as I m not able to work right now.”

The DWP replied stating client had been found to have LCW and so there was no increase in UC entitlement. Client did not pursue this any further. We are now past the absolute time limit for requesting a revision.

Does anyone know if it might be worth arguing that the DWP should have accepted the statement from the Client as a request for a revision?

Sorry if there are already topics regarding this. I looked but could not find any.

I struggle to see that this could be construed as the client saying he disagrees with the decision that he has LCW but not LCWRA.

If you think about it then what he is saying is that he understod the decision means his money will increase and an enquiry about when. Nothing in that indicates he disagrees with the decision - merely that he does not understand it.

Then the decision is explained to him….. and nothing further.

In a case like this, I would do a subject access request for the papers about the LCW decision and then I would see if there could be an official error revision request based on those - for example did the DM act on advice that client did not have substantial risk re WRA because the HCP advised he could do “suitably tailored” WRA? If so can potentially argue that it is an error to conclude no substantial risk as DM not entitled to assume WRA will in fact be suitably tailored.

If no official error revision possible then also worth looking at the notice of decision. I suspect it will not have advised claimant of possibility of late revision application within 13 months if good reason. Can claimant argue that had he known this he would have challenged within the 13 months? If so, can potentially argue that time did not start to run for seeking revision. We have a hearing on this point before the UT coming up in mid October (not 100% clear it will be addressed in final decision but it is being fully argued).

Thank you Martin - this is super helpful.

Good luck for the UT case in October.