Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
UC journal response to a late MR (refusal to engage with it) against a decision made Jan 2024 for wider social policy issues
It’s not easy being facetious on t’internet is it?
I’m confused whether its irony or I have caused offence. If its the latter sorry Paul.
It was actually a genuine heartfelt thanks on my part Paul. Using it as a vehicle to reach a wider audience for social policy issues.
You posed a really good question and given the context a very fair question and gave this social policy theme fresh legs. Something the powers that be should be asking, but conspicuously neglect amidst all the hype and lazy soundbites.
I’m confused whether its irony or I have caused offence. If its the latter sorry Paul.
It was actually a genuine heartfelt thanks on my part Paul. Using it as a vehicle to reach a wider audience for social policy issues.
You posed a really good question and given the context a very fair question and gave this social policy theme fresh legs. Something the powers that be should be asking, but conspicuously neglect amidst all the hype and lazy soundbites.
It was a light hearted remark, that was all, no offence Andy, relax mate :-)
I’m confused whether its irony or I have caused offence. If its the latter sorry Paul.
It was actually a genuine heartfelt thanks on my part Paul. Using it as a vehicle to reach a wider audience for social policy issues.
You posed a really good question and given the context a very fair question and gave this social policy theme fresh legs. Something the powers that be should be asking, but conspicuously neglect amidst all the hype and lazy soundbites.
It was a light hearted remark, that was all, no offence Andy, relax mate :-)
Phew! I’ll give a Zen mode a go Paul!
Haha.. sorry Paul you’ve touched a nerve!
ha that’s Universal Credit for you Elliot!
Just to be absolutely clear, all my original post intended to do was highlight how “easy” in theory it should be to remedy these type of mistaken communications from DWP (which are legion and common). The reality is clearly very different and hugely frustrating.
Just to be absolutely clear, all my original post intended to do was highlight how “easy” in theory it should be to remedy these type of mistaken communications from DWP (which are legion and common). The reality is clearly very different and hugely frustrating.
Oh gawd what I have gone and done, I’m blaming lost points against St Alban’s at the weekend Paul! For my UC induced hysteria.
That said its actually been worth the misunderstandings just to double down on and convey etc etc.
Your right Elliot in one shape, form or another UC touches raw nerves (I’m gonna write a memo to myself).
Thanks both its been meaningful.
I take the same line as Dan. I cant be faffed arguing with UC, and I just go straght to appeal
I did get an interlocutory submission from themonce saying that an MR would be issued in due course
We got the MR but they subsequently lapsed the appeal
I take the same line as Dan. I cant be faffed arguing with UC, and I just go straght to appeal
I did get an interlocutory submission from themonce saying that an MR would be issued in due course
We got the MR but they subsequently lapsed the appeal
Well this is all well and good but for every claimant who has an experienced adviser who will find a way through the DWP’s nonsense, there are a dozen who will take it at face value.
I take the same line as Dan. I cant be faffed arguing with UC, and I just go straght to appeal
I did get an interlocutory submission from themonce saying that an MR would be issued in due course
We got the MR but they subsequently lapsed the appeal
Well this is all well and good but for every claimant who has an experienced adviser who will find a way through the DWP’s nonsense, there are a dozen who will take it at face value.
These are extracts from an email back in 2022 from our partnership manager - when we had the temerity to ask for substantive liaison meetings with the option of people bringing up case studies. The same one in 2024 who didn’t appear to see a problem with inpatients in a psychiatric unit being mandated to attend the job centre for WFI’s /WRR’s accompanied by NHS workers.
‘There will always be cases that are extremely difficult due to the myriad of complexities that exist in the world, however since the start of Universal Credit I have seen those most vulnerable being supported far better than ever before UC and the escalation process.
In fact it’s my experience that a lot of issues have been caused because organisations and individuals have tried to circumvent the escalation process, wrongly believing this would speed up a process’.
We should all keep Judge Wikeley’s words from his postscript to PP in mind
Postscript
48. On any reckoning, this has been a difficult and complex appeal involving a vulnerable claimant. Whether or not the case eventually arrives at a satisfactory resolution from his perspective, his appeal has only got so far as it has because of the actions of three individuals, each of whom in their own way has scrutinised the case file and the relevant online records in the best traditions of the inquisitorial approach adopted in social entitlement appeals before the Upper Tribunal. Those three individuals are the Upper Tribunal registrar who first carefully reviewed the application for permission to appeal, the Secretary of State’s representative, Mr Wayne Spencer, who responded in detail to that application, and the DWP work coach who helpfully provided a full account, many months after the relevant events,of the steps taken on the Appellant’s claim for universal credit.
49. I highlight the contribution of those three individuals as I am acutely aware that many other claimants who are faced with a “case closure” communication in the online universal credit system and wish to appeal such a decision may not be so fortunate
We should all keep Judge Wikeley’s words from his postscript to PP in mind
Postscript
48. On any reckoning, this has been a difficult and complex appeal involving a vulnerable claimant. Whether or not the case eventually arrives at a satisfactory resolution from his perspective, his appeal has only got so far as it has because of the actions of three individuals, each of whom in their own way has scrutinised the case file and the relevant online records in the best traditions of the inquisitorial approach adopted in social entitlement appeals before the Upper Tribunal. Those three individuals are the Upper Tribunal registrar who first carefully reviewed the application for permission to appeal, the Secretary of State’s representative, Mr Wayne Spencer, who responded in detail to that application, and the DWP work coach who helpfully provided a full account, many months after the relevant events,of the steps taken on the Appellant’s claim for universal credit.49. I highlight the contribution of those three individuals as I am acutely aware that many other claimants who are faced with a “case closure” communication in the online universal credit system and wish to appeal such a decision may not be so fortunate
Very apt Derek thanks, and very well put by Judge Wikeley. Now all we need is for Caxton House, regional, and district JCP’s to engage on an human level.