Esoteric - or am I just missing the obvious? I have two cases that turn upon my understanding of this point but I have little experience of actually arguing it.

If someone has dealt with either of these type of situations before, their help would definitely be appreciated by me.

(1) Supersession of tribunal decisions
IS refused by tribunal due to value of house, then the DWP later accept they got the value wrong and supersede the tribunal's decision in client's favour. Surely they can pay IS arrears?

Decision and Appeals Regs 1999, Reg 6(2)c & Reg 7(5)

Reg 7(5) says quite clearly the supersession decision should take effect from the date on which the tribunal's decision would have taken effect, unless it's a DLA or IB case.

So why would the DWP tell me it can't do that? The DWP have indicated by phone that they don't agree with me on ability to pay arrears, although they haven't put it in writing yet; there is no commentary on this reg in my Soc Sec caselaw book.

(2) 'Any time' revision of DM's decision
IS refused due to notional capital exceeding the limit, then (outside the 'any grounds' revision timelimit) DWP accept they got a key fact wrong, and so got the diminishing notional capital calculation wrong, and agree to revise in client's favour; Surely they can pay IS from the date they originally should have?

Decision and Appeals Regs 1999, Reg 3(5)b & Reg 5

Reg 5 Seems to say that if a revision under section 9 decides the date the original decision should have taken effect was erroneous it can be changed to take effect from the date the original decision should have taken effect if the error had not been made.

I'd appreciate someone telling me if I'm right, or why I'm wrong.

Thanks to anyone who responds.

1. On your first point about superseding tribunal decision. Unfortunately I think you are wrong. Reg 7(5) would not operate in the case you describe- it only works where the new decision is worse for the claimant than what the tribunal does:

....the decision under Section 10 shall take effect, in a case where, as a result of that ignorance or mistake as to material fact, the decision to be superseded was more advantageous to the claimant tjat it would otherwise have been and....
(a).......
(b)
from the date on which the decision of the appeal tribunal or the commissioner took, or was to take, effect

I agree with Martin that Reg 7(5) doesn't help the first scenario as it is designed for cases for cases where the tribunal's decision is more favourable to the client.

However for the second scenario, as Martin has pointed out, you may wish to look at reg 3(5)(a) about official error revision. This carries far more generous time limits than other supersessions/ revisions. Reg 3(5)(b) doesn't help for the same reason as reg 7(5).

Official error is defined in reg 1 of the D&A regs. Unless someone outside the DWP "materially contributed" to the error on the question of notional capital then it would appear to apply here.

I don't think the offical error provision would help with the first scenario as it only applies to decisions of the Sec of State (or IR board).

David

Thanks a lot for both your replies.