How do claimants perceive the Mandatory Reconsideration process in the DWP?
Joe Tomlinson, Naoise Coakley, and Jed Meers
If a person disagrees with a decision about benefits, they can ask the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to reconsider the decision. This is called Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) and is done before appealing to an independent tribunal.
The wider use of MR in the DWP is in line with one of the most significant broader trends in administrative law within central government in the past 15 years: the growing use of internal administrative review systems either before or, in some contexts, to replace tribunal appeals.
There is an increasing body of research analysing this trend, including in specific relation to the operation of MR in the DWP. However, despite a principal rationale for MR being to offer a more “user-friendly” mode of redress for benefits claimants, there is minimal empirical evidence available about how those with experiences of MR perceive the process.
Between August to October 2024, we conducted 25 semi-structured interviews with claimants of Universal Credit (18 participants) and Personal Independence Payments (7 participants) who had experience with an MR. The Lab will be publishing a more detailed analysis of this dataset in due course. Here, we present a concise summary of the key themes emerging from the dataset. This data, to be clear, is not intended to be representative of all experiences but to provide qualitative insights into the experience of MR.
Experiences of the procedure
Some participants reported positive experiences with the MR procedure. For instance, some participants received an apology for initial decisions after going through MR. The receipt of an apology was described as "validating", and participants were generally happy to have received one:
"So it was like it's quite a good letter. It was like, we're sorry your payment stopped. We've looked into it and we've decided that you should have been awarded it."
"I'd say it was apologetic in a way, because obviously they've had to backtrack on their initial decision because it was their initial decision. And then somebody else came out and agreed with the decision almost. And then it's almost like, well, because you've given us this evidence now, we're sorry. We maybe shouldn't have took it off you. So yeah, it was almost apologetic. It was, you know, quite good."
Some participants also highlighted that it was easy to seek an MR:
"It was quite easy. The hardest part was trying to put it down in writing as to why you disagreed with their reconsideration."
“It was a form that was sent. If you wish to appeal please do so here. And that and send it back. And that's what I did...Yes. Yes, it's easy to use.
However, the data also reveals a range of perceived problems with the MR process. Some participants reported not knowing how to start an MR after receiving a negative decision and that they did not receive sufficient information from the DWP for them to put a case forward. Some of these participants reported using the internet to find out more, or having their job coach or another member of staff from the DWP start the appeal on their behalf without them receiving a lot of information. Participants reported starting MRs in multiple different ways, including through sending letters, putting messages on the journal, or through phone calls:
"We wasn't aware about how to get mandatory reconsideration on it. So they just wrote one sentence on the journal, basically. And then after reading online, I saw that we should write ourselves."
"I wrote a formal letter to them and I sent I sent it signed for. But I had to do a lot of research into how to do it, because if you go on the Universal Credit, you've got like a portal thing. It's not quite clear on how you do it. You have to do your research into it. And I think that's a way to prevent people from doing it."
"The DWP letter does say, yes, you are entitled to it. Yeah, but it doesn't give a great deal of information on what you are required to do from that part."
Participants also reported that they often didn't understand how or why decisions were made, whether this was the original decision to reject their application for benefits or understanding how mandatory reconsiderations take place, and what information is considered in an MR:
"I do think going back to the first mandatory reconsideration, certainly the advisor was very confused about the justification for it. And I would expect as a claimant that they would all have the same opinion, if that makes sense. It would all be having coming to the same conclusion. So when an advisor doesn't understand it, how are claimants supposed to understand why that decision is being made?"
"So the initial letter again, and it was a very short paragraph...No, it wasn't detailed enough, I think, to understand. And perhaps that's what the advisor thought as well. And that's a kind of criticism I would have of it. It isn't in-depth enough for the claimant to understand."
Participants reported long waits for responses about decisions. Participants reported the process feeling very long and slow. Participants also discussed waiting on the phone to speak to staff and waiting for responses to messages on the journal:
"Every time he tried to phone somebody, you couldn't get through to anybody. It took forever.”
"It's kind of an abyss at the moment. You kind of do something and you hope for somebody somewhere to pick it up and respond in a timely fashion, but you don't know how long that will be. You're literally at the mercy of whoever picks it up whenever and hopefully it's somebody who understands what you're saying and gets it right."
"So I'm pretty sure all in all, it was probably 6 to 8 months. I think it took… a while."
Participants also reported not knowing how long an MR would take and the progress of their own MR:
"And of course, in terms of you don't get any information in between either. There isn't even a text message to say your claim is still being dealt with. We'll be in touch in however long. It is just a period of time where you are waiting for them to make a decision."
"I would expect that they get inundated, and I expected that I might wait some time for a response. I didn't think that was going to go back on the next day, and I'd have a message in my inbox that told me everything was going to be all right. But there was never a never a message, never came. There was just it's almost there wasn't even, like, a process bar to sort of say it's been received. It's been reviewed. There was none of that. There's no tracking, there's no anything. It's just We've received it. We'll let you know in due course"
"Is there any update? Is there an update? Can you please let me know where it's at? And all I would get is ‘we're dealing with it.’ We'll tell you when we know. But there's no, I haven't been able to find anywhere where there's a process of like what they actually are doing behind the scenes to we actually know like, oh, well, this, this and this needs to be done. It, there's none of that. It's just we're dealing with it. We'll let you know when we know."
Another theme was that participants felt that communication between the DWP and claimants was overall lacking; either there was a lack of communication (e.g. not answering messages or not acknowledging messages) or delivering information in a way that is seen as "brutal":
"You kind of sit there and you think, have they read that? Have they acknowledged it? I'm guessing not because you've not you've not replied. So in my head it was, you know, they've not acknowledged that."
"The communication is quite brutal, to be honest. Okay. It'd be along the lines of ‘we have looked at your mandatory reconsideration and at this it's something along the lines of, at this time, we feel that we're not in a position to offer you any benefits.’"
Some participants had accessed external support and independent advice to help them prepare claims for MR. Some of these bodies included charities such as Citizens Advice and Turn2Us, as well as online forums. Third-party support was typically used as participants felt the DWP did not give enough information on how to appeal or what to include in the appeal.
Experiences of DWP staff
Some participants reported positive experiences with DWP staff during the MR process. They were often quick to say if there was a singular member of staff that was good or helpful, even if they had had an overall negative experience. Staff that were seen as "good" were generally "understanding", "empathetic", "see the bigger picture", "friendly", and "helpful." Participants offers the following insights on positive experiences:
"They were very, very calm, to be very honest. They were very calm. They treated me well. They made sure I gave. I was free with them to every necessary information needed for me to. They made me comfortable and they communicated with me very well, regardless of when I started the whole process while I was doing the follow up, they didn't sound like I was disturbing them or being persistent too much, so they sounded well, they attended to me. Well, it was nice experience with them. I was being treated well."
"The second person was fantastic. This person was very empathetic straight away when I called and explained, it was like, okay, listening. It was actively listening and then understood what I was saying."
"Finally felt acknowledged, and I left the Jobcentre with a positive feeling and a smile on my face. Even though I still didn't have the direct communication I wished for. I knew that someone actually listened to me and was taken on board by them. So that was you know, that made my day a lot better.”
Participants who perceived DWP staff negatively reported finding staff as "rude" and/or "dismissive" towards them in their phone interactions:
"So I spoke to several different people. Some were, some try to help and some will just just dismiss me and they're like no, it's correct. I was quite adamant because I knew that it was not correct. But I never resolved it on the phone, ever."
"It almost seems as if it's a real inconvenience for them to be talking to you."
"It just felt very sort of dismissive, like, no, we can't help you over the phone. Sorry. Just go and write on your journal. We might respond. We might not sort of thing. It just felt like they're not really bothered."
Some participants reported feeling hostility from staff during interactions. Whilst participants understood the pressures on staff and the difficulties of liaising with the public on difficult matters, participants indicated that they felt they were not deserving of hostile treatment:
"I think that some people within this Job within this job get hardened, rightly or wrongly, so, to different situations. And I think they are, you know, you know, personally, if you don't like somebody, you'll be a bit off with them. Regardless of their situation, I think that they will they're hardened so instantly if they don't like the look of you or something else. I think that that they need to be more friendly. I'm friendly. I'm not hostile. Why should they be?"
Participants sometimes also described a perceived absence of empathy in their interactions with staff, and they felt staff made little or no effort to understand their circumstances.
"There is no empathy within the process. Like I said, it is just a form that they fill in and tick. There is no other understanding of what other personal individual cases. There's no empathy. You know, they they don't appreciate the fact that As a whole. This is something that affects you rather than just day on a day out, day in, day out basis".
"It felt very patronising and it just felt like it was almost like you're a problem, you're being a problem. And there was no sort of empathy to help. Yeah, it's like I was bothering her. It was like, you know, why are you on the phone?"
Participants indicated that they felt it was difficult to access staff to discuss their claims or ask questions. This lack of access went across phone or face-to-face interactions and extended to the online-based system of leaving messages in the journal.
"I've never really phoned them because it's a bit hard to get through. It takes like an hour or so to speak to anyone. So every time I've contacted the Jobcentre, it's always been through the online journal, but that can take days to get a reply as well." "I wasn't really sure on what to do and where to go with it. And I wrote on my journal sort of three times before I'd actually managed to get a response off anyone. And it was a case of it was like ringing and they'd just tell you that they can't do it over the phone. Can you just write in your journal? And it was like, well, I am, but I'm not getting any sort of response. It felt a bit like going round in circles."
"So if I want to connect with my case manager, I have to write a note to him, and he would pick it up, but they wouldn't pick this up for weeks. And I'm just sitting there waiting when I call up. I wasn't getting no acknowledgement for it as well. So in the end, I had to write an appeal process and the calls weren't working."
Some participants reported that they felt staff were unsupportive during the process, especially when claimants were looking for information about their MR. Participants indicated that staff either could not answer their questions or their demeanour over the phone made claimants feel unsupported and alone in the process:
"It's like, you know, I'm the enemy. And, you know, it was a very sort of abrupt and just unhelpful. There was no empathy in terms of, well, something could have gone wrong. Let me look into it. Let me find out which is what I would expect. But there wasn't anything like that.”
"I don't know why these people were behind that desk or whatever, because they don't really help you."
Overall, impressions of staff interactions around MR were a key feature shaping perceptions alongside the wider process design.
Responses to the process
A final key aspect of the dataset was how MR made them feel. While positive feelings were reported (e.g. such as a perception of vindication following an apology), most of the data in this respect reveals a range of adverse reactions to the MR process.
Participants often said that the process made them feel angry or "infuriated", especially in relation to the process of learning that had to make an appeal. Participants on PIP were typically angry at the DWP for not understanding them and their condition. Participants also highlighted that the process itself, including a lack of information and/or updates, also made them feel angry or hostile towards the process:
"Because it wasn't about the money anymore. It was about getting these people to understand. It was it was written down in front of them. It was so obvious. And yet they can just send a letter to you saying you said such and such. But we completely disagree based upon no evidence whatsoever. And therefore this is what's going to happen to you. Yeah, yeah. At the time. Yeah. Oh, it did make me so angry at the time"
“It's very much the attitude as well. And I think it's universal of you are a burden. You are somebody that needs to just be quiet and wait...It's yeah, it's a really negative feeling. And it also, apart from the anxiety, it also kind of makes you quite hostile towards the process."
"But when you treat people like this, it becomes this sort of aggression and this frustration. And when you call up, you're angry. And because the system is not well, nobody's responding to you and you're not getting anywhere, so you're frustrated."
Participants often shared that the appeal process made them anxious. Whether this was because there was a lack of money coming in or they were uncertain as to the progress of the MR, participants highlighted anxiety as being a common feeling:
"It is just a period of time where you are waiting for them to make a decision. And it can be really kind of yeah, it's it's a really anxious feeling, waiting, waiting just for when they decide or when they get time to do it."
"So obviously being left in the dark for like such a long period adds to the anxiety as well. So I was like, obviously we're going to we're getting anxious. Have they actually listen to our appeal? Have they not listened like what's going on? They leave you in the dark a lot of the time."
"My son has to go to nursery. I have to pay that bill. If I don't pay that bill, I can't go to work. And everything in your head just kind of starts to snowball and you're like, well, everything's sort of hinging on the fact that my child needs childcare. I can't continue to go to work and earn money, and then I'd be in a worse position sort of thing. Yeah So. Yeah, it's just it's it makes you feel a bit sort of anxious, a bit worried."
"It was just a total nightmare and really stressful because I had to do it through a messaging portal, which just took forever."
Some respondents felt "exhausted" by the process of seeking an MR and the accompanying work required:
"I was just so fed up of the process and exhausted by it that I just thought, I'm just going to leave this. I'll leave it. I don't need to do it. I'll just not have any contact with them."
"I felt quite a bit of shame in it, really. I felt. It's exhausting that you're having to kind of fight for something that you're entitled to."
Some respondents felt that the process of seeking an MR was not set up to help them, and there was no real help available. Some perceived that staff were "primed to disbelieve" them, and that they were not there to help them:
"It's the fact that you don't feel like you're reaching out to someone that wants to help you. You just doing it for your sake and expecting them to, you know, you don't have a trust in them to do what's mandatory. You kind of you go into it with a false hope."
"It's like being treated like you're lying or, you know, the the system's perfect and you don't know what you're talking about...It's very patronizing. And it's just it's just it's just not nice. It doesn't feel good at all because you're already in a situation you don't want to be in. You don't want to be claiming benefits, and you're already doing that. And then this person's treating you like you're lesser or you're stupid or you don't know what to do. We might not know what to do."
Participants also reported feeling misunderstood in their interactions with staff:
"It makes me feel like a bit misunderstood or like I'm trying to excuse myself, even though me living through the situation, maybe I'm not explaining myself properly to them, and maybe that's why they don't understand the context or the situation I'm like, I'm facing."
"And emotionally if only they were trained in how ill people actually suffer and yeah, what the emotional toll of that can be on them and that they need to be supported, not well antagonized. It is like needing to have your armour on to go into a fight over it, rather than they claim, you know, their letters will say, we're nice people. And we just want you to talk about how your illness affects you, when in fact they are trying to prove that you're not telling the truth."
Some participants reported feeling judged while they went through the process. This feeling of judgement was often coupled with a sense of shame or embarrassment. Instances where judgement was felt were typically through interactions with staff:
"It makes me feel terrible. Okay. I don't well I don't like claiming benefits to start off with, but I'm a single mum. I am a student. As well as working full time. Without this money, I wouldn't be able to work. And it's almost seen as if the fact that I'm working, I do get it. But yes, I've had I didn't get the full allowance of what I was entitled to because of this. The almost that I'm being judged for it."
"So if they're saying ‘Oh, yeah. So you need to pay this amount back by this day, please.’ The way they say it is, like. It's like it's like really abrupt. It's like really blunt. They just say, okay, you need to pay this back. Obviously if you don't, then obviously you're going to have consequences. It's going to be this, this and this. But they sit in a really like I don't know what I don't want to say aggressive. But they say it in a really like straightforward tone. It's like they're like judging you."
Conclusion
We have presented here some of the key themes that emerge out of our dataset on perceptions of the MR process. While some aspects of the MR process are perceived positively, the system clearly is perceived to have numerous problems by those who experience it, and these experiences can leave users of the process with often strongly negative sentiments towards the process, the DWP, and government more generally. The Lab will be publishing further analysis of this dataset in due course.
This research is part of the Lab’s Law and Process Policy Programme, which is funded by Research England and in collaboration with The York Policy Engine. Policy officials or charities interested in learning more about this dataset are welcome to contact the Lab.
