SDP and Hinchy

I have a client who gets MRC who lives with his mum, who also gets MRC DLA

He is currently on IS for incapacity as he hasnt been migrated yet to ESA

His mum was in receipt of Carers Allowance for looking after him, so he could not be considered for an SDP due to this.

4 years ago his mums SRP kicked in, so naturally CA stopped payment and UE now in place via CP for her pension credit.

The client is now entitled to having his SDP added to his income support, and has been able to be considered for it for 4 years

Im asking about backdating the premium, which in some cases can be done.

I know the DWP will say it serves the client right for not reporting a change of circs that entitled him to be considered for the SDP 4 years ago.

I wonder how the client was reasonably expected to know that Carers payment had actually stopped once his mums State pension started?

Thoughts??

I have a somewhat reminiscent case at the tribunal at the moment.

My client was receiving ESA/DLA and her son was getting CA. Son moved out and a few months later he relinquished his claim for CA. Client’s benefit stopped when she was converted for PIP in December and in dealing with the appeal we questioned why SDP had not been paid for the last few months of the DLA claim and we asked for supersession. DWP said what you have indicated they would say - serves you right and we can only supersede from the day you told us about it, at which point you are no longer qualified, so nothing will be paid.

My appeal raises r7(2)(bc) Decisions and Appeals regs (see also DMG 04226) which indicates that where a supersession takes effect in relation to a third party’s cessation of carer’s allowance, it should be backdated to the day after the CA stopped being payable, notwithstanding the normal rules. There is no reference to good cause, absolute time limits or anything else and the provision has teeth in respect of supersessions, as opposed to the general rule to notify changes in circs which only has teeth in respect to overpayments.

I would expect the same argument works in your case.

Thanks. Just googled and found it

Great stuff, and thanks again!

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470817/dmgch04.pdf

Just to solidify my nerdiness, I’ve actually noticed a typo in 04226 bullet point 3 - the regulations refer to a payment of CA relating to the DLA claimant in question. DMG misses out the word ‘relating’ giving the sentence a completely different meaning. The example given clarifies that this is unintentional.