Appealing FFT decision and payment of lower rate awarded.

Hi all

Client successful at PIP hearing; being awarded Standard Rate Mobility.

However, client (and I) believe he is entitled to more; indeed, the enhanced rates of both (severe uncontrolled epilepsy).

Question is whether client will be paid the SRM component of PIP whilst a statement of reasons and potential appeal is undertaken. 

I cannot see any reason why however, I would appreciate the community’s assistance here prior to advising the client.

Post back if you need any more info. 

Formally, the DWP have no right to suspend payment when claimant as opposed to them is considering an appeal.

However, if tribunal decision is set aside then there is no basis to pay award.

That said, what I have seen happen in many cases is that they pay and then continue to pay even when award of tribunal is set aside and waiting for new hearing.

As far as I know DWP are not notified that a statement has been applied for.

Martin Williams - 21 October 2016 11:34 AM

As far as I know DWP are not notified that a statement has been applied for.

That’s right: I often work on appeals for local authorities and I can confirm that the first the DM hears about a challenge to the FtT decision by a claimant is either after permission is granted or (less common) if the UT directs submissions before deciding whether to grant permission.  It’s unlikely that payments would stop before then.

Thank for the replies.

Following that logic, I would imagine that, even if it does go to UTT, there is always the potential to withdraw the application and therefore, implicitly agreeing with the FTT decision.  If that possibility exists, then the decision should remain until the UTT sets-aside the original FTT decision.  By my understanding, until this point, the FTT decision remains and is valid.

If the FTT decision was set-aside and remitted for further hearing, I would then expect that the client would not be entitled to benefit until the new hearing?

Seems rather confusing but I cannot find the law of this.

Thanks

That is right.

The reason you can’t find law is because in a way it is implicit from how the scheme works:

1. A Tribunal decision in favour of your client directly replaces the decision of the SSWP that was appealed (think this is clear in R(IB)2/04).

2. Where that decision is set-aside that means the operative decision is still the one the SSWP initially made.

Hope that makes sense.