I've been thinking about cases where a negative decision is made on a benefit claim becuase the claimant does not comply with an information requirement and then appeals or seeks a revision within the dispute period.

As no grounds are required for a revision within the dispute period then we normally, and successfully, argue that the information that was missing can be taken into account and the appropriate benefit award given. But, is this correct?

In one of my cases the DWP has refused to revise and written the appeal response. They are saying - in effect - that the decision that was given was the correct one based on the information held at the time.

I'm in two minds about this becuase the disputes process exists to challenge decisions that are incorrect - not outcomes that we disagree with and, as the DWP say in this case, the decision was correct when I it was given. But this weighed against that fact that it isn't normally what happens and, for disputes up to FTT, disputes in facts can form the basis of an appeal.

What do you think?

Are there authorities that support the position either way?

Thanks,

CH/0360/2006 - it *may* help.

Hi Tony

The tribunal stands in the decision maker’s shoes and gives the decision that it thinks the decision maker should have given (R(IB) 2/04). So, without reading the case Kevin refers to, in my view it will all depend on the facts of the case. I think the DWP have a point. If a claim is decided against the claimant because he fails absolutely, and continues to fail, without a good reason to provide information necessary to determine the claim and (if it is a claim for IS/JSA) none of the reasons in regulation 4(1B) of The Claims and Payments regulations apply to him then I don’t think the tribunal should interfere with that decision even if the tribunal subsequently possess the information. The extension of the one-month time limit is only concerned with reasonability and in deciding what is reasonable the decision maker/tribunal must take the action or lack of action as a (but not the only one) factor to be taken into account.

However if the person does supply the information to the DWP then the tribunal must decide whether it would have been reasonable to extend the one-month deadline for supplying information in the circumstances of that particular case. If the tribunal decides that it would be reasonable to extend the deadline in that particular case and decides that the information was so supplied then the tribunal can decide the claim was duly made in accordance with regulation 4 and decide the claim in favour of the claimant.

Regards
Paul

As I understand it DM's do make certain assumptions where the evidence required is missing (DM Guide 01060). When/if the information becomes available the decision can be revised/superseded. In this instance I believe the DMG does reflect a reasonable approach to such an issue: as does CH/360/2006. Was there a request to extend the one month deadline. In any case I am not sure that the tribunal will have to concern itself with whether the one month deadline should have been extended. On the face of it I would suggest it was worth appealling such a decision.

Cheers,

Allan.

There is of course the point that there is no appeal against a refusal to revise a decision.

Belated thanks for these replies.

Tony