Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
paperwork relating to a diferrent benefit
Hi,
Just received a direction notice from HMCTS and it is the first time ive received this type of direction.
Essentially it concerns a PIP appeal. Client had MR DLA Care, and in early 2016 was part of the PIP migration. His application was refused and he was awarded 0 points for both components. We have appealed and the appeal was set for 03/02/17. As part of the appeal we asked the DWP to provide us with copies of all of the DLA paperwork. This was to show that the needs that the client had for DLA still existed and that the clients argument was consistent. We made it clear that we understood that we cannot rely on the past award of DLA to say that he is still entitled to PIP.
Judge has issued a Direction advising that asking the Tribunal to consider evidence from another award of benefit (and for a different benefit) is essentially asking the Tribunal to consider the award of DLA and should the Tribunal find that DLA should not have been awarded, then they would need to refer it back to DWP for them to review the DLA award. It goes on to state that requiring the Tribunal to consider evidence used to award another benefit places the appellant in a ‘wholly unfair position’ because entitlement to another benefit is being put at risk.
Ive never had any issues submitting DLA papers in these cases before, so im puzzled as to where this has come from.
Anybody got any experience of this?
Yes, albeit about three years ago. I wrote back and advised that whilst I thanked for the consideration I would like the matter to be reconsidered because as an experienced WRO I had assessed the case as winnable before proceeding and was confident that any preceding award of benefit would not only have been correct but would also not have been reviewable unless there was a mistake of fact etc. At that stage that would have been entirely speculative and thus inappropriate to deny the claimant the right to have the previous award documentation included. Furthermore it would be a considerable leap to suggest that any such overpayment would came anywhere near the threshold for recoverability and the claimant and I would be content to cross that bridge when we approached it.
The papers were subsequently included.