× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Other benefit issues  →  Thread

IIDB - completely out of ideas??????

Oldestrocker
forum member

Principal - Forensic Accountants, Canterbury

Send message

Total Posts: 100

Joined: 26 September 2011

Client originally claimed IIDB (mental health) in 1994 and awards were made at 80% on a two year re-assessment cycle. February 2004 another re-assessment and 2 weeks later he was admitted into hospital. Discharged from hospital June 2004 and wrote a short letter to the DWP asking for an update on the IIDB re-assessment. Within days he was back in hospital for another 4 months. For the next 6 years it was a continual hospital readmission then recovery etc. In 2010 he recovered sufficiently to address his financial position which obviously was in a complete mess with all of his benefits being suspended/terminated/ceased. May 2011 requested a copy of his IIDB file held by the DWP.
Upon receipt noted that the 2004 decision had been sent to a previous address in early July 2004. Client has no knowledge of ever receiving this letter. Late appeal submitted and new claim for IIDB submitted in June 2011. Appeal failed as (a) out of time and (b) the DWP submitted that they had a note on their file that they had issued a copy of the decision notice in late July 2004 to the correct address but could not produce a copy.
A new claim made in June 2011 also failed to secure any award. An appeal was issued. Evidence was submitted to the DWP covering the period Feb 2004 to October 2011. The DWP accepted the evidence and awarded IIDB at 40% from February 2004 for life, but could only pay it from March 2011. The arrears for the previous 7 years could not be paid as no appeal had been lodged against the 2004 decision despite the DWP revising the 2004 decision in November 2011.

Following a successful FT hearing for an unrelated CT matter, the DJ (having previously ruled on the earlier IIDB late appeal application) found that whist there was a CT liability, the council could not recover it as he found that the 2004 IIDB decision was an Official Error given the evidence produced at the hearing.
Submitted to the DWP what the DJ had ordered in the CT case they still maintained that it was not an Official Error.
Given that the client was totally incapacitated and could not deal with his affairs from2004 until 2010 and the DJ’s decision in the CT appeal case where should I go now?
Thanks in anticipation

Claire Hodgson
forum member

PI Team, BHP Law, Durham

Send message

Total Posts: 165

Joined: 17 October 2013

back to tribunal on the DWP’s current decision?

your client’s position is not assisted by the fact that the mental capacity act wasn’t law then…

did he have an appointee?  was no one looking after his affairs whilst he was in hospital?

did DWP know he was in hospital?

DWP clearly knew he had his mental health issues and surely therefore despite the fact that the MCA didn’t exist, they should, even then, have been safeguarding

Patrick Joseph Hill
forum member

Trafford Benefits Advice Service

Send message

Total Posts: 61

Joined: 15 July 2014

“DWP clearly knew he had his mental health issues and surely therefore despite the fact that the MCA didn’t exist, they should, even then, have been safeguarding”

Extra Statutory Payment?

Thank you

Patrick

Oldestrocker
forum member

Principal - Forensic Accountants, Canterbury

Send message

Total Posts: 100

Joined: 26 September 2011

Claire Hodgson - 09 February 2016 08:45 AM

back to tribunal on the DWP’s current decision?

your client’s position is not assisted by the fact that the mental capacity act wasn’t law then…

did he have an appointee?  was no one looking after his affairs whilst he was in hospital?

did DWP know he was in hospital?

DWP clearly knew he had his mental health issues and surely therefore despite the fact that the MCA didn’t exist, they should, even then, have been safeguarding

Many thanks Claire

The latest missive from the DWP was to refuse to accept the DJ’s ruling that the 2004 IIDB decision was an Official Error. I am aware that there are no grounds for appeal when the DWP refuse to agree that they made a mistake and for it to be accepted as an Official Error.
What I find rather wierd is that the decision notice issued in November 2011 states that the award should run from February 2004 and not from the date that the new claim was made. It clearly states that it is a ‘revision’ of the 2004 decision.
Maybe I am missing something? I was hoping that having the decision accepted as that then the backdated payment would be forthcoming.
Client lives with his wife but unfortunately she has no knowledge of how the ‘system’ works and simply left all of the ‘official looking’ letters for him to deal with (as has been the case throughout their 35 years of marriage) as soon as he was capable. No one actually took care of any of the official post - it was put in a drawer. He was in a perilous state throughout the years suffering from both the mental health conditions and serious physical problems which resulted in 2004 when a DNR instruction was placed on him.
No appointee was made or applied for as his wife did not have the knowledge.
She continued to pay all of the household bills using her savings and when they ran out, her credit cards. Through this she has amassed a debt exceeding £20K and has no savings left.
As I have said, his wife did not have the ability to deal with the DWP, so in consequence no, the DWP would not have known of his conditions or that he was constantly in and out of hospital.
Thankfully his fixed term DLA award (High Mobility/High Care) ended in March 2004. No claim for it to be re-assessed was made. Consequently there is no possibility of any overpayment due to hospitalisation.

I agree that the DWP had such a duty and had a considerable amount of evidence of poor mental health given the many DLA, IIDB re-assessments that he had undergone between 1994 and 2004.
At this late stage, are you suggesting that it would be possible to argue that the DWP failed to safeguard my client? If so to whom? I doubt very much that the DWP would accept that responsibility now?

 

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

If you are suitably insistent that the purported revision in 2011 (albeit made without proper grounds) is still in effect and that back-payments are accordingly due, perhaps you can provoke a re-revision of that decision (such as to cancel out the erroneous revision) which would have fresh appeal rights?

Have I drunk too much coffee?

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

Nope- I was thinking the same (and I’ve had no coffee for at least two hours).

It might also be worth a subject access request just to check what paperwork the DWP does hold in respect of him being as it sounds like he did make attempts to contact them between hospital admissions.  There might just be something to indicate he attempted to challenge one of the decisions previously (in which case you could potentially argue there is an unresolved & outstanding appeal).