I know i've seen this discussed before!
If DM carries out a supersession of an existing award and reduces it, do they have to specify the change of circumstances that led to a reduced award?
Complicated claim history, client was getting MRCC, asked for supersession as she now has mobility problems.
In June 05, she was awarded HRMC as well. Shortly after the decision, DM received a report from one of clien't consultants (she haws a number of disabilities). The DM then superseded again and reduced care to LRCC. Doesn't appear to have identified a change of cirs. Should they? Could they? Would they?

Carol

They should, they could, but that means breaking habits learnt over many years. Methinks an immediate recon (or whatever) is called for - one of our favourite arguments with Consultant's letters is whilst he may have knowledge of the condition, he does not have day to day knowledge of the care needs - therefore his is more likely to be a clinical opinion as opposed to a clinical fact - and there's a world of difference between the two .....

It would be interesting to see how long was it before he signed the letter that he actually saw the client.....

One of the rulings in Wood v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2003) was that a decision can only be superceded on the ground of a relevant change of circumstances if there has been, in fact, been a relevant change of circumstances which is relevant to the decision under which benefit was awarded.

Also refered to in the above decision is Cooke v. Secretary of State for Social Security (2001) which held that although production of a new medical report or of a new medical opinion could evidence a relevant change of circumstances, it did not in itself suffice to constitute such a change, without which the jurisdiction to review did not exist.

See also R(S)4/86 where the Commissioner draws a distinction between primary facts and secondary facts which may be deduced or inferred from them.

Secondary facts are to an extent matters of judgement, and different interpretations or determinations of secondary fact are not grounds for supersession

In my experience DM's often try to rely on secondary facts as purported grounds for supersesion