I have made several supersession requests lately where I have written detailed accounts of the mobility & care needs only to have the DBU DM issue a claim pack to be completed on the basis that there's not enough information contained on letter & that claim pack needs to be completed. I am v.unhappy with this approach for several reasons:

1. I think that there is more than enough info for a decision to be made but that DBU are just adopting blanket policy/approach when they could accept supersessions in this form.

2. There is nothing in the regulation prescribing the format that the information must adhere to. It just makes it easier for DMs to consider the information if it is in the standard format of the form.

3. If the claim pack did not contain much info the DM would still make a decision based on the information contained within it...so what's the difference?

4. It causes further unacceptable delay in the decision making process, which is already lengthy.

All I want is a decision which, if unfavourable, can then be challenged through the normal channels.

I'm going to write to the Customer Service Manager at Warbrek House but wondered if anyone had (i) encountered this problem, and (ii) found a solution whereby supersession letters are accepted & result in decisions being made? Any feedback would be welcome!

Let us know what the response is, g. My experience has always been the same as yours. Very occasionally claimants will receive a shorter pack just asking about the night time etc but usually it's a full DLA434. I have written "Please do not send a pack as X is unable to complete it due to to A, B or C" but it has never made any difference.

Most of the time, i take the line of least resistence, but i have had the odd letter accepted without further ado, and on one occasion, after i had sent a carefully prepared letter detailing all the relevent info, and they issued a pack, i telephoned and spoke to the D-M involved, and argued the toss about it. she backed down eventually, only i think, because it was clear that i would send in a letter of complaint.

Section 10 of the Social Security Act 1998 states that any decision of the Secretary of State under section 8 or as revised under section 9 “may be superseded by a decision made by the Secretary of State, either on an application made for the purpose or on his own initiative”

Thus a supersession is an application and not a claim and is a request for a review of an award based on fresh information. I agree completely that it matters not in what form that information is provided, once provided the DWP must act on it and make a decision one way or the other, with concomitant appeal rights.

It is inappropriate to request that the information held be provided again. The DWP have a duty to make a decision under threat of judicial review seeking an enforcement order ordering them to carry out their public duty to make a decision.

A letter before action copied to their legal department may light the appropriate fire under them.

This issue had been around since the introduction of DLA/AA in their current forms - 1992? I think you have to keep raising it in the various DCS consultative forums. I would stress to DCS that taking this approach involves them in more work, as they have to read your letter and then read the same information in the DLA 434.

Higher Rate Care revision/superession forms - again the failure to supply the shortened form should be raised in consultation forums. In my experience it is much more common for AA to send these out than DLA. Why this should be the case I don't know. One way to try and ensure DCS send out the shortened form is to begin the process by phone rather than letter, and then ask specifically for the shortened version.

We almost always do a supersession request by completing a claim pack and sending with a short covering letter along with any medical evidence. It doesn't take any longer to do, since you still need to get the detailed information from the client, and it doesn't get rejected.

Where only component is requested to be changed, you can write on the covering letter that the claimant only wants that component considered and not answer the questions for the other component and the form.

When completing a claim form with the client, you can also state the disabilities in the claimant's own words, which I've always thought is a much more effective approach to giving disability information. Not least because DM's, IMHO, are probably as sceptical of WRWs as we are of them!

Interestingly, in the original post, it was mentioned, in a negative context, that one of the reasons for DBU insisting on a claim pack is that it's easier for DM's. Why is that not a good reason? I go on the premise that if we can make it as easy as possible for DM's, the chances of a favourable decision at the outset increase?