Constant Attendance Allowance MR

Recently submitted new form for Constant Attendance Allowance and rate increased from part day rate to full day rate. Requested twice statement of reasons and that I would be lodging an MR as felt should have had the Intermediate rate.

Told today that no statement of reasons sent as there is no right to an MR or Appeal for CAA.

I gather from the call that a new application would be needed as every night needs were not on the last claim, this is despite the last claim stating needs 24 hour care, help in and out of bed needed, soils bedding and needs help, in danger as will leave candles burning by the bed.

Has anyone challenged a decision or can suggest a way to challenge?

Decisions on CAA, i.e. increased payments under s104 of the SSCB Act 1992, are listed in para 14 of Sch 2 to the D+A Regs (“Decisions against which no appeal lies”)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/991/schedule/2.

So I presume that a renewed application, or judicial review, will be the available remedies (though Sweet and Maxwell does have some commentary on whether much of that schedule, via reg 27, might be ultra vires).

Thanks Jon

This covers the Appeal is not possible, but they are also stating, now not just the initial person who answered the call but also their team leader that it cannot ask for a MR.

DRH page p.356 under Constant Attendance Allowance, second paragraph that you can ask for a reconsideration.

In addition to DRH the following on Goc.uk is stated -

https://www.gov.uk/constant-attendance-allowance/how-to-claim

It clearly states ;-

If you disagree with a decision

If you do not agree with a decision about your Constant Attendance Allowance, you can ask for it to be reconsidered.

Contact Barnsley Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit Centre for more information.

Barnsley Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit Centre
Telephone: 0800 121 8379
Relay UK (if you cannot hear or speak on the phone): 18001 then 0800 121 8379
Find out about call charges

Surely based on this they should allow a reconsideration even if cannot take to appeal. ?

The quid pro quo where a decision cannot be appealed is that it can always be revised at any time (reg 3(8) D&A Regs 1999). The language of ‘mandatory reconsideration’ is perhaps what is confusing matters as that is language which is specific to the appellate process. There is not usually much point in arguing with people who pick the phones up about this kind of thing -  perhaps just write to Barnsley stating what you are asking for?