|
What about where there is information included on the pages relating the mobility component which suggested that the care component was appropriate and which led to the award? In the normal course of events we would find ourselves arguing that the DM should take into account of this and, if appropriate make an award. The form is a means of gathering information and, for the most part, I really don't think it matters whereabouts on the form the information appears.
So, if it was just that the care-related questions were not touched at all, it could be more difficult than the previous contributor suggests to argue for non-recovery.
If it was the case that the claimant stated on the form "I do not want any care component" then the previous contributors argument is stronger but leads to the inevitable question: why didn't your client query the award of care component?
Regardless of this, if the supersession was based on a change of circs relating to disability and PDCS can prove there was a relevant change, then it would be difficult to argue against a failure to disclose.
I hope this makes sense.
|
