Good Morning All, I have a recollection of a commissioner's decision which dealt with the DWP having different views/decisions on the same topic. I.E. one section of the DWP can't hold different opinions on the same issue, e.g. a client's inapacity for work, as another section of the DWP. Can anyone point me to the decision?

Cheers.

Hi Allan

Are you thinking of?

CDLA/2160/2003 held 'On the mobility component the claimant’s case for reinstatement of her higher rate award is now as I say conceded by the Secretary of State: rightly so, because in my judgment there was never a proper ground for taking it away under the pretext of “ignorance or mistake of material fact” at the date of the original award in 1998. That award was made after taking into account all the facts perfectly truthfully disclosed by the claimant at that time; and all that can really be said is that someone in the department finding she was still working regularly some four years later must have taken the view that the original doctor’s assessment of how badly restricted she was by pain was too generous. That of course is quite insufficient to justify superseding the earlier decision on the purported ground of “ignorance or mistake of material fact”. There is all the difference in the world between a decision made on an incorrect factual basis and one which somebody else looking at the same factual basis thinks should have led to a different assessment. I therefore accept the concession of the Secretary of State and substitute the decision already set out reinstating the claimant’s higher rate mobility award at all material times from 9 May 2002 onwards, on an indefinite basis so there was no need for any further claim or award to maintain entitlement on and after 18 June 2002'.

Afraid not Andy! My present case concerns a client who failed the Work Capability Assessment re ESA. The client, earlier this year, was signing on and claiming JSA. Following a WORKSTEP assessment “It was agreed that XXXXX's best way forward was to return to incapacity benefit and other provision.”. (I have a copy of this report). He was consequently advised by his local Jobcentre to claim ESA. He did claim ESA and failed the Work Capability Assessment re ESA!

The commissioner's decision I am thinking about was concerned with two arms of the DWP expressing different opinions on the same issue. In this case the Jobcentre advising a client they can't offer him anthing and he should claim ESA due to his incapacity - whilst a decision maker determines the same client is not entitled to ESA.

I believe the commissioner commented on such differences of opinion within the DWP as being at the least problematic. In this instance how can one person in one office of the DWP express an opinion which is contrary to the opinion of someone in another office of the DWP! (Some cynics may say quite easily).

Cheers, Alan

I see what you mean Allan, hopefully somone can come up with you are looking for.

Andy