Saw a claimant yesterday who had, the day before, received notification in the post that his DLACC had been increased from low to middle rate. We rang the local JC to let them know, so that SDP can be put into paymwnt as well. The officer who answered the phone thanked us for calling but said she already knew about the increase in DLA since there was a note on her computer to tell her about it.

This seems like a bit of a breakthrough and I'd have thought it has some implications for future o/p cases. Are we heading for a new era in which we can assume that one offices of the DWP is informing all other offices of relevant changes in benefit?

CC

"...can assume that one offices of the DWP is informing all other offices of relevant changes in benefit?"

Er, no. Without express legal provision, no such assumption can be made. My view is that IF the DWP choose to check with other sections, such action should simply be treated as a bonus.

I don't think I was suggesting we make such an assumption now. However, if it becomes normal practice for DLA awards to be notified to local offices then the next time this issue is tested at Commissioner level the outcome may be different, wouldn't you agree?

In days of yore, Where a claimant, when completing a claim form for DLA, ticked the box to say that they wee in receipt of I/S, if an award was made there was a paper system in place whereby Wembley (or whoever) would send a form to the local benefit office. Where no I/S was shown, for instance where a person was receiving Incap, then this wouldn't happen.

In the past, we would occasionally come across cases where the local office had been notified but had failed to act, and obtain substantial amounts of backdated benefit .....but I digress....

Nowadays, I assume that the same system is in place in JCP land - according to our local Pension Service they do get notified by AA/DLA where the form had signified claimant was in receipt of PC.

Having trundled through all that, I still think that the golden rule is still to assume that your friendly local BDC hasn't been notified: even if it did start to become an accepted practice, every time the system failed, they would point out that an internal administrative arrangement does not absolve the claimant from the mortal sin of not reporting changes of circumstances.

I don't think that the commissioners would have any authority to give different outcomes. Until Lord Hoffman's dictum, that it is not for claimants to second guess the internal arrangements of the DWP, becomes bad law (and that would be for the HL or the new supreme court - if it comes into existence to decide) then the commisioners would be bound by authority.

You may remember that last year the BBC aired a series of programmes exposing DLA fraud,and officers from Blackpool at work, it clearly showed that using one computer they where able to contact all the different offices around the country to stop Carers, I.S. ,ICB and so on of the fraudsters they caught , I have since been awaiting a Hinchy type case to use this as evidence Hinchy may have little or no relevance in some circumstances. Unfortunately, or fortunately for my clients I've yet to get such as case or simpler arguements win the day.

I think the DWP should take responsibility for its mistakes. There is a reported CD that contains a phrase along the lines of 'you can't fail to disclose something of which the department is already aware'.

I don't know why Hinchy went against that but it seems to me that law is placing on the claimant the burden the DWP's administrative responsibilities as well as the already significant burden of being a claimant. So I agree.

That said however, until such time as it does become settled law, the claimant is still under the obligation to report changes in circs.