Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
PIP ‘‘Negotiation calls’’ after an appeal has been lodged- Apparent new practice??
Very concerned at a new step that seems to have been put in place recently once the SSCS1 appeal has been lodged. Two of our clients have reported phone calls from appeal managers making offers of partial awards dependent on the appellant agreeing to drop the other component. When our clients said thank you for the Mobility award but they they still wanted to pursue the outstanding daily living component they would told that the favourable mobility element could no longer be offered !!! and the decision would not be changed.
Thankfully one of these client referred them to me as their adviser. When I spoke to the officer he told me that he could now see Enhanced mobility was due based on additional evidence but still not DL. I said well that is fine, please issue that revised decision and we will still go to appeal on the outstanding element. . I was told this was not possible as it was accept the total package and he could not write a revised decision giving Enhanced mobility only !! otherwise he would defend the original nil award.
It was then explained to him that in his role as an impartial decision maker, if he truly felt mobility was now payable, then he must state that in a decision. If that was a genuine belief, then it did not matter if we still wanted to pursue the daily living element. I protested that the process was not a negotiation as this would disadvantage claimants. We had appealed if they wanted to revise the decision based upon evidence then he must do that and apply the law not get into a crude negotiation about what we would settle with to avoid a tribunal; hearing.
Shortly after this conversation and our protestations at this new practice in that telephone conversation they backed down and awarded both DL and E Mobility.
We have seen a tribunal bundle where there is mention of an unsuccessful ‘‘lapse’’ perhaps such calls and attempted negotiation is the term for that process. We will write a submission explaining that on this clients case an offer was made that included one element but was withdrawn when the client still wanted to pursue the other element.Surely the law on PIP can not be reduced to a crude negotiation?
Our concern is that people will accept lower offers of revised awards rather than take their cases to hearings.
Does anyone else have experience of these post appeal lodging calls and attempts to negotiate by the DWP? We intend to formally raise this practice and would like further examples please.
Agree that this kind of bargaining stinks - though, of course, had the DM done the ‘right’ thing in the scenario you’ve outlined, this would have the effect of lapsing the appeal. Yes, the claimant would be able to pursue to appeal, but an entirely new appeal would have to be lodged against the new (revised) MR decision.
I’d be tempted to play along, accept what was on offer and then appeal the new MR decision regardless - it’s not like they’re going to be able to say (i.e. in writing) the new decision doesn’t carry appeal rights or is contingent on there being no further appeal.
Yes agree with you it stinks! This is almost like them having another go at the MR process just because an appeal has been lodged. Do you think this is a new process to reduce the numbers of successful appeals by trying to negotiate part favourable decisions?
No idea. I’ve occasionally had it in the past with DLA appeals.
It’s not going to be entirely without merit in every instance - I can envisage circumstances where I’d recommend a client accept an ‘offer’ of standard rate mobility and daily living where we’d gone for standard rate mobility and enhanced daily living in the appeal, for example.
And as I say, there’s always the option of accepting the offer and then whacking in a new appeal regardless - in fact, assuming this practice were to become the norm I can see also see it ending in fairly short order if enough people responded in the way I suggest. ;)
Strikes me that as MR has moved back from a position of doing whatever was needed to prevent a matter going to appeal inevitably something had to move to take its place. The introduction of more POs is one step in that direction. This very much sounds like another. Not without merit in certain circumstances but I’m guessing the target audience will be the great unrepresented who will indeed take what they can get. Another review on appeal is legit. and required. A phone conversation making what sounds like a one time only offer is not. The sort of thing we ought to be getting in the meejah wherever we can. It’s blackmail.
As the new decision carries appeal rights wouldn’t the best advice be to accept the new offer then appeal the new decision?
As the new decision carries appeal rights wouldn’t the best advice be to accept the new offer then appeal the new decision?
Can’t think of any reason you couldn’t regardless of their assertions.
Don’t know why I bother.
:(
This isn’t new; it’s been going on since they introduced PIP; here in the Capita heartlands we’ve seen this happening since 2013 when it commenced.
It is fair to add that in examples we’ve seen the DM making the offer implies that the appeal is dead in the water if the offer is accepted; no indication of further appeal rights although we know better.
if your SSCS1 asks for both components couldnt they issue a revised decision whilst the rep asks for a direction notice to keep the appeal live as it doesnt deal with the substantive issue of the appeal?
benefit here is it might be a bit quicker if thats possible?
shows you the last time i had a decision reviewed pre appeal that im having to think this through.
Clients have told me about calls like these. I don’t know if it’s right to call them “negotiation calls”. What seems to happen is that the Appeals Officer writing the submission figures that on the evidence something should have been awarded but rather than lapsing the appeal, policy is now to ask the claimant if they are happy for the appeal to be lapsed on the basis thought appropriate.
The logic is that if you put an appeal in asking for enhanced/enhanced and the DWP think you should get standard mobility, it doesn’t help anyone if they revise the decision without saying anything and force you to appeal again.
If you refuse or don’t answer your calls, then the submission will come back saying that the decision under appeal is unchanged but the decision maker will still be required to state their opinion as to what the appropriate award is.
Of course as past caring says, “accepting” the offer and then appealing the new decision anyways is very often going to be the best strategy…
Don’t know why I bother.
:(
Lol. If it helps, in my head I awarded you a gold star for being first.
Don’t know why I bother.
:(
Sorry,
Guilty again of not reading the whole thread but scanning a few words.
Incidentally there is one of these submissions on my desk this morning.
Decision was for 6/4 points. Further evidence provided - new AP report says 11/8 points are justified. DM contacted client to offer to lapse but client did not answer.
Under “Decision under appeal” and “Areas not in dispute” the reference is to the original 6/4 point decision.
In “Claimant’s reasons for appeal” The DM says “Further advice was requested from the HP which was returned on xx/xx/2016. The HP recommended a score of 11 points for the Daily Living component and 8 points for the Mobility component. If implemented this would mean that Ms x would be entitled to the standard rates of the Daily Living and the Mobility components of PIP.
A number of unsuccessful attempts have been made to contact Ms X to ask if she would like to continue with the appeal or if she would like the new decision to be implemented. As we have been unable to contact Ms X, Tribunal [sic] are requested to consider and decide on the issues raised”
Conclusion: I the Tribunal [sic] to consider the appeal and decide if the Secretary of State’s decision is correct.”
Putting the onus on the client is more than a little naughty. Whatever happened to lapsing only when a decision was more favourable and then let people decide whether they want a new appeal or not at that stage?
I can see one complicating issue in accepting the revised award then putting in a fresh appeal. You have the issue that the appellant now has something to lose. If it is a nil award initially, nothing to lose, Enhanced Mobility no DL, Motability car secured, DL living awarded, so SDP on IS/ESA etc, the tribunal can re visit all of the award so there is suddenly far higher stakes on the appeal, so it really needs to be dealt with on a case