Does the PIP Unit notify the relevant benefits office of an award?

For some time now, clients who have been awarded PIP, within 2 weeks receive a SDP questionnaire. Am I wrong in thinking the PIP unit automatically notifies the relevant benefits office?  Case of joined up thinking I hope.
I picked up a case in September, whereby one partner has been in receipt of PIP for at least two years. Her partner qualified for PIP in August 2016.. There has been IBESA in payment for years before the first and second awards of Enhanced.PIP DL and Enhanced Mobility.

When I became involved, in September. I wrote on behalf of my clients to Birkenhead.  Today,  I receive a letter refusing to pay both SDPs from the date of the second partner’s PIP award because my clients failed to notify them of the change in circumstances.

I am going for a revision on the grounds that the Birkenhead office were notified of the second award of PIP DL by Blackpool.  However, not before my client rings Blackpool, asking them for a letter confirming the award of PIP . position

Has anybody got any other tactics i could use?  Thanks in anticiipation of your help and advice on this one.

Few thoughts, in no particular order:

1. I think the answer is that ESA are sometimes told and sometimes not told.

2. It’s worth remembering that ESA awards have a claimant and a partner, not two claimants. Is it possible that ESA were only told about the claimant’s PIP award - which one is the claimant?

3. If the 2nd member of the couple was awarded PIP in August 2016 and you wrote in September 2017, then you might be just barely in time to argue late notification regardless of what other arguments you might have.

4. Has there ever been anyone claiming Carers Allowance in respect of this case - it could be helpful if there has been; see reg7(2)(bc) of the D&A Regs 1999.

5. This thread discusses the inverse situation; whether they are told about the end of a DLA/PIP award: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/11995/

6. Getting an SAR might help find out what happened more definitively

EDITED TO CHANGE VIEW——- SORRY

Hi Unite1,

Initially I was thinking that this is not a case where the late notification on change of circumstances rule operates….

Was looking at it as an application for supersession made under regulation 6(2)(e) and 7(7) of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999 (SI No. 991). This works as follows:

1. Reg 6(2)(e) says the following type of decision can be superseded:

“(e)  is a decision where–

(i)  the claimant has been awarded entitlement to a relevant benefit; and

(ii) subsequent to the first day of the period to which that entitlement relates, the claimant or a member of his family becomes entitled to, another relevant benefit or an increase in the rate of another relevant benefit;”

2. Reg 7(7) then provides the effective date of a supersession in such a case:

(7)  A decision which is superseded in accordance with regulation 6(2)(e) or (ee)
shall be superseded–

(a)  subject to sub-paragraph (b), from the date on which entitlement arises to the other relevant benefit referred to in regulation 6(2)(e)(ii)  or (ee)  or to an increase in the rate of that other relevant benefit; or

(b)  where the claimant or his partner–

(i)  is not a severely disabled person for the purposes of section 135(5) of the Contributions and Benefits Act (the applicable amount) or section 2(7) of the State Pension Credit Act (guarantee credit) or paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations;

(ii)  by virtue of his having–

(aa)a non-dependant as defined by regulation 3 of the Income Support Regulations 3 regulation 2 of the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations or regulation 71 of the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations; or

(bb)a person residing with him for the purposes of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the State Pension Credit Regulations whose presence may not be ignored in accordance with paragraph 2 of that Schedule, at the date the superseded decision would, but for this sub-paragraph, have had effect,

from the date on which the claimant or his partner ceased to have a non-dependant or person residing with him or from the date on which the presence of that person was first ignored.”

3. Reg 7(2) (which contains the rules on the effective date of late notification of change of circumstances without a good reason) does not apply in a case to which para (7) applies.

4. However on thinking about it then it is not a case of the double SDP being stopped by a ND but rather because they qualify for the couple rate SDP now- so (7)(b)(ii)(aa) seems not to apply!

Martin.

That’s right - it doesn’t.

Which means (just in case Unite 1 isn’t clear on this) that reg. 7 (7)(a) applies - it applies unless of any of the circumstances set out under para. (7)(b) apply and none of them do. In short, the award of ESA is superseded under reg. 6 (e) and the date from which that supersession takes effect is provided for by reg. 7 (7)(a) - the date PIP was awarded.

This used to be meat and potatoes for the DWP but there’s been such a slipping of standards they don’t understand it anymore. So much so that I’m actually at the UT with precisely this issue at the moment.

Thanks past caring-  I wasn’t reading (7)(a) properly- just got confused about (7)(b) not applying and then didn’t read the whole thing properly.

So as past caring says- this is not a case where the late notification rules apply - effective date of supersession is the week from which the partner got the PIP.

Phew….