× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

PIP planned interventions/supersessions - date of payment

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

This had not occurred to me until it was raised in a Tribunal decision notice last week.

Client was in receipt of ERDL awarded from June 13 - April 16 with a Planned Intervention date in April 15. Original award letter in November 13 says “we’ll contact you after 1st April 15 to make sure you’re receiving the right level of PIP”.

New PIP2 sent out Apr 15 and returned by client 10/5/15. Decision made 10.07.15, DL component removed and nil award.

We go to Tribunal and get ERDL and ERM. Decision notice states:

“The Tribunal noted that the Respondent purported to undertake a supersession of the appellant’s award. The appellant provided info relating to the supersession on 10/5/15. In those circumstances the Tribunal’s decision to make an award has an effective commencement date of 10/5/15”

CPAG p.1313, referring to The Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013, says that if DM decides to do a supersession themselves and the decision is advantageous to the claimant it usually takes effect “from the date on which s/he first took action with a view to doing a supersession”.

The regs themselves, Schedule 1 Para 18 state:
“Where the superseding decision is advantageous to the claimant and is made on the Secretary of State’s own initiative, the decision takes effect from the date on which the Secretary of State commenced action with a view to supersession”

So, my questions are:
- why has the tribunal awarded new rates of PIP from 10/5/15?
- is the date the SofS ‘commenced action with a view to a supersession’ the date it sent the new PIP2 out?
-or should the relevant date actually be the date of the original award letter in Nov 13 which stated that there was an intention to carry out a supersession in Apr 15??

edited to correct dates

[ Edited: 26 Apr 2016 at 05:39 pm by BC Welfare Rights ]
BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Sorry to bump this but would be very grateful for any opinions.

What chance of arguing that when a planned intervention date is set in advance and that intervention/supersession subsequently results in an increase in the award it should be backdated to the date that the intervention date was first set? (i.e. the date of the original decision/award letter).

I appreciate that the claimant’s conditions may have changed/deteriorated in the intervening period but the way the Reg is written that does not seem to matter. In this case his condition has not really changed much anyway, just the award.

If anyone knows why CPAG (2015/16) says an advantageous supersession “usually” takes effect from the date on which the DM 1st took action with a view to doing a supersession I would also be grateful for an explanation. Why “usually”?

Thanks. Billy

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

Billy Durrant - 26 April 2016 04:16 PM

So, my questions are:
- why has the tribunal awarded new rates of PIP from 10/5/15?
- is the date the SofS ‘commenced action with a view to a supersession’ the date it sent the new PIP2 out?
-or should the relevant date actually be the date of the original award letter in Nov 13 which stated that there was an intention to carry out a supersession in Apr 15??

As no-one else has had a go, I would say that your third bullet could not apply as that’s merely a notification of the fact that the award may be looked at again - can’t see how that would constitute commencing “action with a view to supersession”

Conversely, on your first bullet, again I can’t see this is correct as it relates squarely to the date that the award was originally suspended following the review form’s return.

As such, I think you’ve probably got an argument that it’s the second bullet that actually meets the statutory criteria. The sending of the PIP2 could be construed as the date from which the SoS commended action with a view to supersession. The problem I see, however, is that to test this, you need to put an extremely good outcome for your client at risk by going to UT.