Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
PIP appeals/SOR requests
Just wanted to check whether anyone has had a successful PIP appeal outcome where the DWP hasn’t then requested the SOR and suspended payment?
It’s happened with all of ours so far (and I’ve been told by the PIP frontline that it’s national policy).
I understand it is national policy as you say and that this is for the first x number of appeal decisions, so it should change in time.
Can’t remember the figure, but think it was either the first 200 or first 400 appeals that the DWP were going to automatically request a SOR.
I can’t help feeling that the FTT judges aren’t going to be exactly delighted about it.
Ah well- let’s hope they reach their self-imposed quota soon. Another cynical exercise to make life as difficult as possible for disabled claimants I fear.
To give DWP its due, it it not a wrong thing to see how Tribunals are interpreting the regulations. Perhaps the policy of suspending payment until someone makes a decision on whether or not it is to be taken further is a bit more dubious, but let’s hope it leads to good quality DWP submissions in PIP appeals. I suppose after 6 months or more waiting that a month or two more may not make a great deal of difference.
Repped and won at one about 4 weeks ago where they didn’t ask for a statement (though they did have a PO). Payment is now in place.
Interestingly, however, they have issued client with a ‘review decision’ that effectively implements the FtT decision but which states that if he still disagrees with the decision (i.e. the DWP’s new review decision, rather than the FtT decision) he can appeal to the FtT and must lodge his appeal directly with HMC&TS; - i.e. no MR required (assuming an appeal were allowed to slip through the net, this would effectively bypass having to apply for a set-aside of the FtT decision, or appeal to UT?).
. no MR required (assuming an appeal were allowed to slip through the net, this would effectively bypass having to apply for a set-aside of the FtT decision, or appeal to UT?).
I suspect it’s not so much operational expedience that forms the basis for this letter as lazy decision makers populating correspondence with the wrong standard phrases from their list.
The only way that they could work round the Tribunal decision in law would be to supersede it; otherwise the FtT is the operational decision that would need to be reviewed or set aside by the relevant processes.
You can’t appeal a FtT’s decision to the FtT.
Cheers Dan - I know this stuff, but I do wonder whether the DWP have recruited and ‘trained’ a fresh batch of staff to deal specifically with PIP but who have absolutely no idea of the wider legislative framework in which they operate.
What has been issued is what clearly purports to be an entirely new decision, albeit one that awards the same points for the same activities (and for the same reasons) as the FtT. There’s no legal basis for any new decision in these circumstances - we have the orginal decision refusing an award of PIP, the MR that refused to revise that initial decision and the FtT decision that did revise it. And that’s it.
Just thought I’d throw this in, as if it’s something that is repeated/is policy once awarding decisions are made by tribunals, it’s quite possible there will be a whole new lot of mess to deal with (i.e. claimants attempting to appeal an FtT decision to an FtT - one could absolutely read the letter I have in front of me as stating this is possible).
[ Edited: 29 Sep 2014 at 02:19 pm by past caring ]Just thought I’d throw this in, as if it’s something that is repeated/is policy once awarding decisions are made by tribunals, it’s quite possible there will be a whole new lot of mess to deal with (i.e. claimants attempting to appeal an FtT decision to an FtT - one could absolutely read the letter I have in front of me as stating this is possible).
I’m sure somewhere in DWP there is internal guidance that once a FtT decision is handed down a DM must profer a new decision; I often hear JCP saying “we’re waiting for the DMs decision” after an appeal’s been decided.
Much like people reporting ESA changes of circs are invited to make a new claim. Legally it’s balderdash but it represents processes laid down in such a manner that temp staff can comprehend it.
I am also sure; if this is what PIP are doing, that there will be judges tied up in striking out wrongly made appeals agaisnt these new decisions from PIP. I would be entirely unsurprised if they get as far as the FtT before anyone notices what’s happened. The complexity comes when the FtT needs to consider whether it represents a set aside application; I can see 6 months passing quite quickly and Tribunal files having been destroyed before that consideration is given and once again DWP complacency gets in the way of justice being done.
The cynical part of me wonders whether this is a deliberate policy to try and put claimants off taking PIP appeals to the Upper Tribunal?
Similarly, I wonder whether the reason for asking for SoR’s as standard practice following an FtT decision on a PIP appeal isn’t so much about looking to improve decision making standards as much as looking for patterns where awards are being made and subsequently seeking to tighten up related descriptors and/or amend guidance to reduce the volumes of successful PIP claims and appeals.
But I’ve been on holiday for 2 weeks, so I could just be being oversensitive perhaps….
The cynical part of me wonders whether this is a deliberate policy to try and put claimants off taking PIP appeals to the Upper Tribunal?
Similarly, I wonder whether the reason for asking for SoR’s as standard practice following an FtT decision on a PIP appeal isn’t so much about looking to improve decision making standards as much as looking for patterns where awards are being made and subsequently seeking to tighten up related descriptors and/or amend guidance to reduce the volumes of successful PIP claims and appeals.
But I’ve been on holiday for 2 weeks, so I could just be being oversensitive perhaps….
Exactly my thoughts Paul. But then I’ve recently returned from 2 weeks leave too, so it must be catching.
I have now dealt with a few of these appeals and no SoR requested on them, and payments made quite quickly , which is surprising given some have 12months of backdate. Just to put another twist on this, we were advised by a Senior Judge (during a TUG meeting several years ago) to request a SoR even if we win, especially if it is a limited award, or a complex case because if you had problems with the renewal it was good pursausive evidence for future hearings.
Odd, though obviously hurrah for your clients.
I wonder if they’re targeting particular tribunal venues? (perhaps to get a cross-section of SORs from around the country or something). They’re certainly still doing it as a matter of course in Reading.
Our next scheduled PIP hearing is coming up at the end of next week so I will see what happens following that (on presumption the client is successful).