Client claimed DLA on admission to hospital. Decision received awarding DLA for 4 weeks, then disallowed. Payment of the 4 weeks was not made at that time. Client remained in hospital 2 months. On discharge failed to notify DLA until 4 months later (this is under appeal) and was awarded and paid DLA from date of notification of the discharge plus the initial 4 weeks award.

Can I argue at appeal that because the payability of the first 4 weeks was not made at the outset, this negates the delay in reporting discharge, because the decision was not implemented at the time. Consequently when the discharge was actioned and the initial 4 weeks paid, the DM then had possession of the facts and should award DLA in full from the discharge.

Am I clutching at straws here?

Well,
Cannot see how DLA awarded for only 4 weeks ! was the 4 week award for a period prior to hospital admission - check the decision it sounds like it could be an open ended award but only payable up to the date of admission - the award would then carry on in payment following discharge from hospital.

The delay in informing DLA of the clients discharge would be down to his health and the none payment of the 4 weeks - so yes worth an argument as sounds like payment of award already made rather than two different awards

The sequence of events was...

* 28/08/08 Claim form completed.
* 01/09/08 Claim received at DLA.
* 03/09/08 Admitted to hospital.
* 26/09/08 DLA advised claimant in hospital.
* 29/09/08 DLA decison made, after checking claimant still an inpatient.

The decision was an indefinite award of DLA from 01/09/08. The decision included a payability restriction from 08/10/08 because he was in hospital. Client states he has not received the DLA for 01/09/08 to 07/10/08 (I'm querying this with DLA, no reply yet).

* 18/11/08 Discharged from hospital.
* 08/04/09 DLA notified of discharge.
* 23/04/09 DLA decision of 29/09/08 superseded, revised decision
entitled to DLA from 18/11/08, payability from 08/04/09; not payable
from 18/11/08 to 07/04/09.

I suspect he still has not been paid for 01/09/08 to 07/10/08, still waiting for DLA to confirm. It was this aspect on which I was thinking of arguing for payment of arrears. If it is confirmed that 01/09/08 to 07/10/08 has not been paid, is there anyway I can argue that when it is paid DLA should also consider paying for 18/11/08 to 07/04/09, at the same time, because the original decision on 29/09/08 has not been fully implemented. I know it is probably a bit of a stretch, but....