Shortest possible award period for AA. 

Everything I am reading suggests that very small award periods are possible and not just because there may only be an underlying entitlement.

Find myself in the amusing situation of putting together a sub for an indefinite award but in doing so I need to point out that the current two year award could not possibly have been in reference to what DWP wrongly think the main disabling condition is because were that to be the case then the award really ought to have only been three months i.e up to a surgery where the outcome would be known immediately.

Am I missing something? Awards of less than one year are surely possible?

It’s Friday and my brain and eyes are in need of a hive mind.

The DWP normally says that there is a six month minimum award for DLA on the basis that there’s a six month prospective test - so it wouldn’t make any sense to award for a shorter period. As the prospective test doesn’t apply to AA, then there’s no necessary lower limit.

See DMG 61613-9.

Thanks Elliot. Just needed a second voice to confirm I wasn’t imagining that. Astonishing that the guidance on award lengths is so skimpy across the board. One small 2018 document for PIP. The DMG for AA.

We’ve seen a couple of similar cases Mike. One person refused because (1) they said they hadn’t satisfied six-month rule in first instance (which was true but it’s clear they can still make award from point that six month period is satisfied but then (2) there was no evidence they would also satisfy requirements for next six months i.e. they just made up another reason. Unfortunately, although on our advice the client appealed, they asked for paper hearing and FtT upheld decision?!

Then we’ve had another case last week where they’ve refused award again because they say no evidence satisfies conditions for next six months, for no obvious reason.

Interesting. Never had issues with AA award lengths ever as best I recall but now it’s a thing.

My case is one of genuinely poor decision making at every step so far. A wholly unnecessary appeal.

Award based on dry AMD. Decision to restrict award based on being on a waiting list for cataract surgery. The problems being that

- the outcome of the cataract surgery is irrelevant and could never impact the award as the dry AMD had been there for five years and the appellant is already at the stage they’ve been reliant on their peripheral vision for some time. Removing cataracts obviously important for general eye health and being able to understand the progress of the AMD but would never have changed functional vision; reduced care needs etc.
- the claim pack detailed when the claimant went on a waiting list for said surgery but on the same page on the same line it also made clear the claimant was off the list as they had a day and month for the first surgery. The exact date was listed.
- DM made a two year award two days after the first surgery took place but, with no irony, clearly didn’t see the surgery date in the claim pack. Had they done so it’s hard to see why they would have made any decision without first contacting the claimant who would of course have said that they’d had the surgery and, whilst the world was brighter and less blurry, it wasn’t sufficiently less blurry to enable them to use their central vision and thus had zero impact on their functional vision. 
- MR DM made the same error. Upheld the decision to award for two years on the basis that the claimant was on a waiting list. This was a month after the actual surgery detailed in the claim pack. No evidence as to why two years i.e. no evidence of whether they sought advice on local waiting lists as per the guidance etc.
- MR DM compounded the above by making multiple calls in a short period to the claimant to “explain” the decision. This included telling them they were “lucky” to get a two year award when they normally only award for one for cataracts.

Latter subject of a successful complaint where DWP have gone far beyond the usual mealy-mouthed “We apologise if we may have…” and have identified inconsistencies and then instead of hiding behind the usual “GDPR won’t allow us to tell you what happened next” they have actually confirmed the DM is being monitored.

DM included their record of alleged one call in the appeal papers so I have of course included both the complaint and the outcome. Have then put in a sub which, as an aside, notes that the whole one year for cataracts thing appears to be outwith the guidance in the DMG and points to the operation of an internal scheme on award lengths.

More importantly the cataract surgery was an irrelevant, momentary distraction and the award should clearly be indefinite. Would like to think someone would read this and just offer the correct award length and lapse it. Instead I have an elderly client quite agitated about having to go through the whole renewal process and an appeal imminently to no great purpose.

My experience over the past few years is that appeals on award length take between three and ten minutes for a tribunal to award what’s been asked for. What a massive waste of the time of all concerned.