× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Decision making and appeals  →  Thread

PIP planned intervention, upper tribunal remaking decision, confusion

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Bit confused.com about what to do with this, advice and/or tactical suggestions much appreciated.

Client was awarded PIP Mob Component only from April 15-  June 17 with a planned intervention date of June 16
Appealed to Tribunal for DLC in Jan 16 and got to keep SRM but didn’t get DLC.
Went to Upper Tribunal in Nov 16 and it remade decision and awarded SRDL/SRM Apr 15 - June 17

So far so good. But in Oct 16 (later than stated) client was reassessed as per planned intervention. 2 days before UTT remade decision awarding SRDL, new decision came through on planned intervention - award terminated. MR upholds termination in Jan 17.

SSCS1 completed and sent off last week. Today client received a letter from DWP stating that as result of UTT decision in Nov 16, client entitled to PIP SRDL/SRM from April 15 - June 17, backdate of DLC paid from April 15 to date and letter says it will continue to be paid up to Jun 17.

Which leaves me wondering…what am I now appealing against, as PIP is back in payment? However, should it be in payment given the supersession decision? Or does the fact that the UTT decision was made 2 days after the supersession decision overrule it?

And if PIP shouldn’t be in payment, what is the risk that payments from Oct 16 will become recoverable overpayments?

Pete C
forum member

Pete at CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 556

Joined: 18 June 2010

I can’t see how any overpayment would be recoverable. PIPS have very clearly got all the relevant facts and nothing is/was being withheld or not notified by your client

Neil
forum member

Debt & Benefits, Aster Communities

Send message

Total Posts: 96

Joined: 7 November 2013

Surely the \UT decision overrides the new decision, so all correct, if you want to be certain write to the FtT Judge for guidance on the new appeal.

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Thanks both.

For whatever reason the DWP has now chosen to issue a second MR notice which adopts the UTT decision as its own.

Thanks again.

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

There were two decisions:

- original decision, successfully appealed to UT; and
- superseding decision following planned (slightly delayed) intervention

The second decision has been revised in the light of the successful appeal against the first: DWP has taken the pragmatic view that the claimant would probably win if they went through the whole appeal process all over again.  Because there was an FtT appeal pending they had grounds to revise the second decision without it necessarily having been wrong in terms of mistaken facts or a legal error - the appeal to the FtT gives them carte blanche to revise by taking a different and more generous view of the facts, which they have done.  Result!

Peter Turville
forum member

Welfare rights worker - Oxford Community Work Agency

Send message

Total Posts: 1659

Joined: 18 June 2010

Billy Durrant - 23 January 2017 01:10 PM

Thanks both.

For whatever reason the DWP has now chosen to issue a second MR notice which adopts the UTT decision as its own.

Thanks again.

Your case does generate some potentially complex issues about the affect of the UT decision on the ‘planned intervention’ decision now under appeal and the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Only sight of the full decision making history would clarify that.

It may be the UT decision should have applied only for a closed period up to the date of the ‘planned intervention’ decision (because it was made (2 days) earlier - and presumbaly the UT was not aware of it). The DWP may have treated the UT decision for that that closed period only but have now revised the ‘planned intervention’ decision [under UC, PIP etc. (DA) reg. 11].

If the DWP have not now also lapsed the appeal I agree that you should now seek a direction from a judge about whether the tribunal will now have jurisdiction in the planned intervention appeal supplying a copy of the UT and 2nd MRN decisions.

[edit: HB Anorak has cross posted with mine and has siad the above more simply - but I would still check the position of the outstanding appeal!]

There is a further practical issue:

Will DWP now conduct a new ‘planned intervention’ under UC, PIP etc. (DA) Reg. 26, or invite a renewal claim under UC, PIP etc. (C&P) Reg. 33(2) (has anyone actually seen DWP invite a PIP renewal claim yet?)?

Or, will the award now simply come to an end in June 2017 with nothing happening (because DWP do not know what to do in this senario - would not suprise me).

From experience this is the type of complex sequence of decisions (the sequence and related decisions / actions being all important) that can go horribly wrong!

[ Edited: 23 Jan 2017 at 02:27 pm by Peter Turville ]