Person wishes to withdraw from one component but not the other. DLA call and say no. You can only withdraw from the whole lot.

Indef. award. Should also note that, whilst it is indef, one component was originally awarded before the other.

Have to say I see no logic to the desire to withdraw from one but there you go.

Refresh my memory here. A quick glance through the regs. suggests it should be a supersession and that could be of one component. Any reason why it cannot be of one component bringing just that to an end?

It is perfectly possible to have a supersession which results in the removal of only one component. You would need to produce evidence of course to confirm that the other is still relevant. But you cannot stipulate in advance that the component you want to keep is not reconsidered. It is one benefit and an application is normally for the benefit as a whole. It's the same as the reason why you cannot technically appeal against the removal of one component only and the Tribunal is free to look at both.

Well that pretty much summarises my reading of it except I am not so convinced that you need to produce evidence to confirm the other component is still relevant. The onus is on the party seeking to revise.

If the claimant states that whilst nothing has changed they wish to end entitlement to one component because they feel that receipt of it disables them in more than one sense they are unlikely to have that happen as there may not be grounds for supersession. On the other hand they could argue they were not entitled to it for some time. That implies a change (or at least ignorance or mistake as to a material fact) but that could suggest an issue with the other component.

My argument would be that the latter in itself does not imply that anything has changed on the other component but, as you say, that might not stop them looking at it.

Problem is that when someone is misadvised like this it becomes potentially harder to persuade them to pursue the issue. Fortunately that doesn't seem applicable in this instance.

Should have asked - but I assume we are talking about an indefinite award?

Yes, it is an indefinite award.