To cut a long story short client awarded DLA LRM/MRC for an indefinite period in 2004 whilst she was in residential care, client left a residential care home Aug 2005 to move into her own flat (received HB) in supported accommodation, she then subsequently moved from that flat april 2007 to another flat (HB paid) in supported accommodation.

But client only received DLA LRM, but no MRC from August 2005 - May 2008 on the basis that DWP argue they were not informed that she had left residential care per se, but there is evidence they knew of her changes of address, although it is not clear if they knew the status of her accommodation.

Anyway we want to write for a printout of the DBC computer note pad system off all recorded communications i.e telephone calls and letters (including annual increase in DLA letters) between DBC Blackpool client, clients reps (health care professionals) between 2005 - 2008. But i can't remember the correct terminology for the name of the computer system/printout we need to ask for, would be really grateful if anyone knowing it, be they welf or DWP fellow public sector brother/sister worker.

This might sound a pedantic request for help, but we are talking about a young Woman with ASD, a communication and language disorder, a myriad of other health conditions, who we know would not have been able to report any changes of circumstances without input from others, and i don't want through my ignorance of DWP computer systems to leave any stone unturned.

Would be really grateful for any help offered

andy

Hi Andy

I had a similar case but this was with the local authority, I requested all records of correspondence written and electronic under the date protection act

Hi Andy

I don’t think you have to use any special terminology as such. Just ask for copies of all correspondence between the DWP and the claimant held on file, copies of all case entries held on her file detailing all telephone contact and where these are incomplete, computer printouts recording the said information.

What you really need to find out is if her award of the care component was suspended or superseded. If it was suspended then the 1-month to notify a change in circumstances doesn’t apply and they should simply re-instate in full. If it was superseded then the 1-month rule does apply unless you can argue official error along similar grounds to that in CA/2800/2006.

Regards
Paul

Hi Shirley and Paul

Thanks for the advice on the LA bit, in this case its not been problem (thank gawd) and they have given me all the addresses and dates of HB claims.

Will follow your advice Paul asking for correspondence etc etc. Unfortunately her care component was superseded, and because it was over 3 years ago, i can't make a case for stretching the one month rule to 13 months. So its the official error route i've been looking at.

I've got a gut feeling of tangible official error about this case, within the secretary of states submission there is a big yawning gap between 2005 to 2008, despite the fact its clear they knew of her address changes, omitted from SOS's sub, incidentally one of the addresses starts off as flat 9 blah blah and the rest of the address sounds like low rise small block of flats, which it is.

Another quirk to this case is that she was being paid an IS (i.e. SDP) top up on her IB from March 2006 despite no DLA care component in payment.

anyway thanks to the both of you, you've crystalised my thinking.

andy

Hi Paul

Was it CA/2800/2006 you meant or CA/3800/2006?

aNDY

Sorry Andy I meant CA/3800/2006.

It all makes sense now, thanks Paul.

We have a very similar case going to Commissioner (SoS appeal). Before the tribunal we got a supplementary submission from Warbreck House to the effect that:

"any change of address notified to the local office would be entered onto the Personal Details Computer System (PDCS) by that office and a broadcast sent to DBU ... Reports are produced listing all new addresses of DLA customers... this system only gives details of any cange of address and itself is insufficent to notify DBU of a relevant change of circumstances..."

The Tribunal rejected this submission and held that:

"what was relevant was the change of address. This was clearly reported, as acknowledged by the SoS. It was then for the SoS tp determine of this was material."

Since timely notification was made MRCC was payable all the way back (4 years in our case).

Submissions on the SoS appeal are complete - waiting to hear back from OSSC with either decision or further direction.

Richard Atkinson

Perhaps if before the appeal you reminded the DWP of Kerr v Department of Social Development for Northern Ireland (HL)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040506/kerr-1.htm

(i) The social security benefits system is enormously complex;

(ii) The process of adjudication for social security benefits is inquisitorial rather than adversarial;

(iii) Adjudication is a co-operative process of investigation in which both the claimant and the Department play their part;

(iv) The knowledge as to the information that is needed to deal with a claim lies with the Department, rather than with the claimant;

(v) It is for the Department to ask the relevant questions;

(vi) Facts which may reasonably be supposed to be within the claimant’s own knowledge are for the claimant to supply, provided that the claimant has been given a reasonable opportunity to supply them;

(vii) The claimant cannot be faulted if relevant questions are not asked;

(viii) Where information is available to the Department rather than the claimant, then the Department must take the necessary steps to enable it to be traced;

Philip Boyd

Firstly thanks everyone for the input!

There are a number of factors revolving around this case that in effect incorporate everyones advice.

1, SOS's submission asserts that the first they knew of client leaving residential care address in 2005 was in 2008, but we have annual letters with DLA increases i.e. LRM for the two relevant addresses dated 2007 and 2008 prior to our first contacts with DBC Blackpool. So there is incontrovertible evidence proving each of her respective change of addresses had been notified.

2, Paul's case law suggestion has resonance too, because client at college of further education for students with special education needs, providing residential care, again documentary evidence illustrating that, and that she had gone there straight from a School. Supercession decision made a few months before she due to leave her residential college.

3, As for Phillip's case law suggestion (apart from being really really useful), its representative of so many short comings in this case, not least because this is young woman with severe health conditions (i.e. life long), unequivocal evidence in SOS submission and as for people (identified within SOS's sub) who could have been contacted after she left Care, totals 9 people from College, Social Services and CMHT, one of whom had been clearly communicating written info on her behalf, because she is unable too, and who presumably communicated that she left Care.

see ya Andy

good luck with it andy.

i think it's definitely worth delving into paul's case law suggestion further - i suspect that the decisions will all be 'supersessions', because the 'system' makes it so, as Cap'n Picard might say...but is it correct?
my brain's just about done in today, but the wording of reg 9 of the DLA regs (i've assumed this was the reg used, are there any others?) like reg 8, indicates suspension of payments of benefit, assumed again under sec 113 SSC&BA. in other words - claim and entitlement has already been made and determined, it's a payment question, no reason why payments should be withheld - proceed to reg 20 of C&P and collect £200...
why not??? : )

Let us know how your case gets on Richard.

Hi Jan my knowledge of Star Trek is stuck in the 1970's, and since you've brought Cap'n wotsit into the equation, my mind is stuck or should that be warped with that song in my head "where's captain kirk" by Athletico splizz 80 or energy or what ever they were called at that point (they had a few reincarnations within a very short period of time). Its a song that still stands the test of time.

Anyway, i have, and will definitely be delving deeper into Paul's idea's/suggestions and thanks for the further advice, but as a passing thought, i can't help thinking centralisation of DWP/shedding of workers is a contributing factor to both our case and Richard's.

When i worked for Mental Health NHS trusts, we used to come across this scenario from time to time (albeit not everyday but literally a few times during the year), and flag it up, then someone from Blackpool would give us a ring, we'd chat and exchange any necessary paperwork and client would get arrears and on occasions even give our office a box of quality posh premium chocolate.

: )

"i can't help thinking centralisation of DWP/shedding of workers is a contributing factor to both our case and Richard's."

the Sec of State is aware that he has less staff to do the same work, but seems to think it can be done without lowering standards...

i don't see why your case shouldn't have been noted for a full review on change of address, do you...? without some review date there was always a danger that the lifting of the suspension could be missed and your client lose out on money she was entitled to...

Hi ya Jan

I was actually being part tactful/respectful (towards hard pressed fellow public sector workers) and part tongue in cheek regardless of centralisation or not,. Taking your last paragraph i couldn't agree more with you, but going back to centralisation i do think it is having a really corrosive effect in hardening attitudes amongst some DWP workers towards claimants and have a corresponding affect on their decision making.

I repeat some! Because i come across e.g. Bristol DBC and Exeter BDC some really good big hearted people too. Bit like welfs, you get good, bad and indifferent like any other strata of our society influenced by hegemony.

Mmmm i suppose this is the stage when i should shut up, or maybe change the subject to Funghi or Lichens.

andy

We've finally got to the stage where Blackpool have finally conceded they knew of the change of address Jan 2006, but appear unable to communicate who, how etc etc how this info was received. They also state in a submission, that they acknowledge they hadn't actually made any enquiries after receiving info.

My question is would we have any mileage pin pointing the date conceded and inviting the tribunal using (R (IB) 2/04) to allow a late notification of change of circumstances to backdate from July 2005, assuming they (tribunal) accept COC was notified Jan 2006.

As always desperately grateful for any input.

Thanks for everyones help, DBC Blackpool 'lapsed appeal' at the 11th hour, have awarded monies from Jan 2006 to May 2008.

We've now got to work on the gap between aug 2005 - Jan 2006.

The second appeal decision successful plugged the Aug 2005 - Jan 2006 gap in payments, so all arrears between aug 2005 and May 2008 awarded.

Thanks Paul for the official error line of argument, suggestions and case work, crucial for plugging the Aug 2005 - Jan 2006.

Hi Andy

My pleasure. Great result.