Happy Winter Solstice, everyone!

I have an appeal coming up and any pointers would be welcome. Let me explain.

Claimant was in receipt of DLA (both components) but when this came up for renewal the new decision was to find him not entitled at all. He was 64 at this time, which was before I ever knew him. He put an appeal in and there was a paper hearing. He cannot recall ever receiving the result but since his DLA continued to be paid assumed his appeal had been successful. Only when he was 65 and the local JC+ had a Pension Credit take-up campaign and looked at his case did it emerge that his appeal had in fact been lost and he was receiving DLA he was no longer entitled to.

His JC+ worker was shocked and upset at having to cut off my claimant's DLA and SDP and put in a new claim, which was treated as a claim for Attendance Allowance and was turned down Our appeal is against that decision. No suggestion of any recoverable overpayment, by the way.

My instinct is that this claimant has a decent case for LRCC and HRMC of DLA but probably not for AA. It is important, therefore, that his claim is treated as a DLA rather than AA one. My argument (which is also the position taken by the unhappy JC+ worker) is that since it was less than a year after the previous award came to an end and he was 65 when putting in the new claim then it should be treated as being for DLA. Only trouble is that this is technically not the case. It was less than a year since he stopped receiving the money, certainly, but more than a year since his award officially came to an end. I am arguing that in these circumstances he should be treated as being within the time limit but whether this is allowable I must say I am not sure.

Any advice would be very welcome.

Thanks very much.

If he never received the result, any mileage in asking for notice to be sent now, and starting the clock for an appeal to commissioners?

There's no provision for backdating a new claim for DLA or AA under any circumstances.

You could try to get the original tribunal decision set aside on the grounds that it was not properly promulgated (ie not properly notified to the parties). The time limit runs from the date the decision notice was sent, not the date of the hearing, so you might still be within the time limits, depending when, (if ever)your client actually found out the decision.

Much food for thought. Thanks to both.