PIP - appeal related to 3 judge decision - opinions please!

I have a case where the original decision was made in September 2015 and the 1st tier was in march 2016.
DWP appealed it as the 1st tier made an award of 11. D - cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey without another person by way of her mental health.

Appeal was set aside by the UT citing that there is a pending decision on planning / following by the UT.

The appeal is now listed for the 27th of march and I’m unsure what to expect at this tribunal as there was a directions notice issued after the 3 judge decision, at this time I’ve only sent in a letter to point out paragraph 35 / 59.

anyone experienced this?, DWP haven’t sent in a supplementary submission yet however they are directed to attend and I have no idea what their argument is going to be.

Don’t be surprised if it’s adjourned; DWP stated in the emergency question debate in Parliament that they intended to appeal against MH so you can expect a S26 notice.

I think we would be very interested to hear whether that notice is issued… Please keep us updated.

That’s interesting…... I wasn’t aware of the DWP’s intent to appeal,

We have quite a few similar cases but this is the only one that has reached this level, all others are either at SOR pending or SOR issued.

Will do

Ross ORourke - 03 March 2017 09:18 AM

I wasn’t aware of the DWP’s intent to appeal,

It does appear disingenuous to appeal the decisions when they’re legislating to reverse their effect doesn’t it?

I wonder whether the Sec State might have been telling fibs.

It would certainly seem to be a strange way to use public money - appealing a decision that no longer has any effect.

rightsnet story on new PIP regs includes link (at the bottom) to House of Commons debate in which Damian Green confirms that both decisions involved (including the three-judge panel one) are being appealed -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/news/item/amendments-to-pip-daily-living-activity-3-managing-therapy-or-monitoring-a

oops, sorry just seen that Dan’s already given link to that :) have also heard on grapevine that three-judge panel appeal going ahead.

Ros White - 03 March 2017 04:13 PM

rightsnet story on new PIP regs includes link (at the bottom) to House of Commons debate in which Damian Green confirms that both decisions involved (including the three-judge panel one) are being appealed -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/news/item/amendments-to-pip-daily-living-activity-3-managing-therapy-or-monitoring-a

oops, sorry just seen that Dan’s already given link to that :) have also heard on grapevine that three-judge panel appeal going ahead.

Perhaps the logic is that when the 3 person UT finds against them they can use that to highlight as proof that judges don’t know what they’re doing.

Update on a similar case…...

Used MH V SSWP today…... first question by judge, Did you know the laws changed?

only awarded 1.B - 4 points for mobility and not 1.F as sought.

looks like this case is goosed!

The new Regulations are only in force from 16 March 2017 and I think it would require primary legislation to make them retrospective, so you should be able to rely on the 3JP for any period before the new Regs come into force

The judge didn’t go for it at all…. and through a mix up I walked into the room and observed the judge sitting by the window reading a legislation book,

I’m visiting the client on Thursday to fully discuss the options but my view taken from the posts on the rights net news feed was that the legislation changes reversed the decisions….. which I felt was confirmed today but I now think this could be an err In law.

and the case certainly, with mental health experts letter backed up the award of 1.F so its not as if he just didn’t satisfy the conditions for that!

Any news on that Section 26 notice Ross?

I have a case where the Upper Tribunal stayed the appeal pending the 3 Judge panel outcome, My question is , what happens now, it relates to mobility for anxiety y. Do the new rules mean my client’s case is ended, will the UT issue a final decision this. IS there any other route I can take for my client who has Asberges syndrome and cannot get about alone

many thanks in anticipation of a suggestion

More info on the PIP regs in the SSAC March meeting notes

Thanks Paul, seems we are in limbo until UT issue a decision on my case !!!

SocSec - 27 March 2017 01:11 PM

I have a case where the Upper Tribunal stayed the appeal pending the 3 Judge panel outcome, My question is , what happens now, it relates to mobility for anxiety y. Do the new rules mean my client’s case is ended, will the UT issue a final decision this. IS there any other route I can take for my client who has Asberges syndrome and cannot get about alone

many thanks in anticipation of a suggestion

How about “safely, reliably” etc? If a baby cries or a dog gets on the bus does he get off?if someone sits next to him what happens? If that person talks to him? talks loudly ?

Asperger’s is very variable but what specifically is it that makes him so anxious that he must have someone with him

Dan Manville - 22 March 2017 03:57 PM

Any news on that Section 26 notice Ross?

I, too, have got a case analogous to MH on my books now and nary a sniff of a S26 notice…