Situation is: Client scores 43 points in July 2003 PCA. In June 2005 he has a painful medical and scores zero. Comes to us for help. I send him to an orthopaedic triage doctor for another painful assessment, scores 25 points and doctor (who saw him November 2003) says has had no relevant changes. Also pursue complaint about June 2005 medical.

Complaint upheld. Send copy of complaint upheldment, copy of new assessment to DWP who revise decision in client's favour, BUT say he needs a NEW examination. Put in appeal against decision, and now DWP are 'looking at whether client will need another examination'. They are also (seemingly effectively) saying that original decision on supersession of previous award was not properly effective because of duff IB85 and so decision effectively ceases to exist so no possible appeal.

This rather tickles me to a _very_ small extent. The logical outcome of the 'non-signed' IB85 argument was that the there were no grounds to supersede and so supersession not effective. But the outcome of that could only ever be that the poor claimant was posted off to another examination.

If this does end up in appeal I don't really see that there's anything before the tribunal (unless they want to be nasty and reinstate the original decision, which is a real danger) if they accept DWP's findings; the date of when to request that a claimant is reassessed is surely solely a matter for the DWP? Or is it?

Thoughts on this situation welcomed - there I was over the moon I'd finally got a complaint upheld. Poisoned chalices everyhwhere aren't there?

Andrew I'm a bit confused about what's going on here. You've got a result with the complaint but why the appeal? No point in appealing the original decision as it's been revised and no longer exists. And why appeal the revision decision as it's in your client's favour? On the non signed IB85 and for that matter any lack of grounds argument - the 'poor claimant' is in fact a much better off claimant when he is paid IB for the period between the original invalid decision and the new correct one following the new PCA.
Mick

Because he is fed up of people walking all over his back Mick, not unreasonable perhaps given http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=100&topic_id=2691&mesg_id=2691&page=

At a tribunal a couple of months ago, the Presenting Officer commented that it was usual practice to review someone again after a successful appeal. Although having said that I don't get that many people coming to me with IB50s soon after their appeals, so who knows?

A deeply worrying idea Sara. It must be the prerogative of the DWP to be able to review someone, particularly given s12.8.b SSA, but a blanket policy is surely fettering their discretion? It completely undermines the position of the tribunal. DMG para 13462 may be the origina of this idea (couldn't find any others indicating it as a policy).

I wonder if any of these people have an idea how physically and psychologically upsetting the PCA is? I've had clients worrying a week beforehand and physically ill afterwards.

My worse PCA story is of the client with emphysema who nearly passed out by the long time it took her to reach the second stair, until someone came up and told her that the 'lift out of order' sign must have been put there by accident.

You may have seen threads about our ICB DM he regularly issues a new PCA after a successful appeal.Not positive to the client in many ways, but a lot of the times client at appeal due to completing IB50 themselves . At least so soon after appeal client returns for help with new IB50, and thus allows to get a well completed IB50 on file. Very rarely are they called for a medical as (in my opinion )there is a trend to look for badly completed IB50 so it is easier to find them fit for work at a medical. My opinion is based on the fact it a very rare event that we get to the appeal stage if we complete the IB50,99% of our ICB appeals client completed the IB50 on their own.