No detailed info re why PIP award reduced from ER DL and Mob to SR DL and Mob following review

Rattling away at the back of my (admittedly rather small) brain, I seem to recall that the DWP has to provide substantive reasons if they reduce a claimant’s existing award upon review, but I can’t find this anywhere so I may be imagining it.

She was awarded ER for both following a Tribunal in 2019. Her condition (mental health plus physical) has deteriorated since then. She has not left her house for 3 years.

In February 2022, my client’s PIP award was extended until December 2023, think this was because of a backlog in dealing with reviews. However, following submission of a review form and a telephone assessment, her award has been reduced effective from March 2023. I was present on the phone during the assessment and know that she didn’t say anything that would give cause to reduce her award.

The HCP report and the DM letter basically focusses on the issues that a) she is not on any mental health meds and b) that she is not under any specialist MH input. This was the situation at the time of the Tribunal and I explained why in my Tribunal submission.

The DWP does not provide any reason to justify why they think her condition has improved/what has changed since her Tribunal. They just do the usual of regurgitating the points the HCP made.

I know that, in all likelihood, she will need to go to Tribunal but I’m hoping if I can point out that DWP seems to have failed to address a key issue, ie justifying a reduction in award, she might be able to avoid this.

As usual, any thoughts gratefully received. (Probably my last MR before retirement at the end of April - hurray!).

There are very many decisions making the basic point that an FtT ought to give some level of explanation when it departs from previous decision making but they usually cite R(M) 1/96.

I have tended to find that “I was awarded X in 201Y. My health is the same/worse now. Therefore please just continue my award at the same rate” is an argument which doesn’t work on MR but does often result in appeals lapsing.