Reconsidering Mandatory Reconsideration: Is the system fit for purpose?

Mandatory reconsideration (MR) is a process that allows benefit claimants to request a review of a decision about their benefits claim. MR can be used to challenge a decision to refuse or stop Universal Credit (UC), or the amount that the DWP awards claimants. Many find this to be a difficult and lengthy process, which makes it unpredictable and hard to navigate.

In the last year, 23,000 people came to us for help with issues about MR in Universal Credit. Many are unable to access the MR process or are waiting too long to receive an outcome. These problems can result in our clients having to rely on the foodbank, discretionary housing payments and debt repayment advice.

Issues with requesting MR

MR can be requested in 4 ways: through the UC journal, by phone, letter or filing in a form, the first two being the most common.

Our advisors report that the phone line can be very busy and claimants can struggle to get through to a call handler. Some claimants may also find difficulty with expressing themselves on the phone. One of our advisors said that claimants may be guarded when speaking with DWP over the phone as they feel DWP’s decisions have caused them hardship.

One of our clients came to our local office, where an advisor helped them request an MR over the phone. The call was disconnected twice before they were able to make the request. Another advisor reported that claimants aren’t called back after a call is disconnected. Having to speak to a different call handler each time can cause stress and waste claimants’ and the DWP’s time. According to claimants and advisors, most call handlers are friendly, but some receive an unsympathetic reception. Waiting to be connected to a DWP agent and calls ending abruptly make this a difficult way to request an MR, often adding stress and frustration.

Claimants with digital claims can request an MR through their online journal. However, the DWP routinely freezes that platform once they close or turn down a claim. This means claimants may not be able to request an MR through their journal or use it to provide additional evidence to support their request. This makes the process much more complex and hard to access.

Of those we helped in 2024 with issues about an MR in UC, almost half wanted help with an MR that related to their initial claim — a group most likely to be affected by their UC journal being frozen. This means that those who have access to the internet lose out on a more efficient way to raise an MR.

Of those who come to Citizens Advice with MR problems, 19% have faced issues with accessing the internet and digital literacy in relation to their initial UC claim. This shows the extent to which MR can be inaccessible for people who struggle with UC’s digital design. Digital exclusion can be caused by a lack of tech skills, suitable devices or due to learning difficulties. Although some people can rely on a family member to assist them, many can’t access online services at all. Digital exclusion significantly limits the ways claimants can request an MR.

Tim* visited his local Citizens Advice in the north of England. He needed to confirm his ID to receive his first UC payment but wasn’t able to as he didn’t have the necessary digital access. Tim told the DWP multiple times that he doesn’t have access to the internet or a phone. This caused him to miss out on a payment of £380. Our advisors recommended that he request an MR by asking the DWP to send the form by post as this was the only method accessible for him.

Long wait for a decision

Claimants report long wait times in receiving decisions. Once an MR is lodged, there’s no time frame of outcome provided by DWP. This means that claimants face uncertainty on how long they have to wait for a decision.

The DWP has said that there’s no target in law for processing MR applications and that they prioritise being thorough in their decision making process. This places an unfair burden on claimants, who have a limited time to request an MR but are not always given a timely response.

What are the next steps?

There are a number of issues with MR. To improve the experience for claimants we suggest:

1. Specifying timeframes for MRs to be cleared so claimants know when to expect an answer
2. Creating a separate phone line for MR claimants and sending confirmation that their request has been lodged with an MR reference number
3. Keeping UC journal open for one month after the claim is closed to allow more claimants to request this way
4. Advertising and providing tech support for claimants who are digitally excluded

The current MR system functions less as a safeguard and more as an obstacle. For the system to benefit UC claimants as intended, it must evolve into a process that is reliable, timely and accessible.