LEAP reviews

I’ve just come across a LEAP decision which only considers MM, rather than looking at MH as well.

Considering the period the MM LEAP is considering encompasses the entire period of the MH/RR debacle surely they could/should consider both.

Has the Tribunal jurisdiction to consider both? I got knocked back by the UT when I suggested an FtT could revise to add points not included in MH/RR but that was for taking nutrition which couldn’t supersede; the MH issue could.

Dan Manville - 17 August 2023 04:24 PM

I’ve just come across a LEAP decision which only considers MM, rather than looking at MH as well.

Considering the period the MM LEAP is considering encompasses the entire period of the MH/RR debacle surely they could/should consider both.

Has the Tribunal jurisdiction to consider both? I got knocked back by the UT when I suggested an FtT could revise to add points not included in MH/RR but that was for taking nutrition which couldn’t supersede; the MH issue could.

We have one too Dan, and we were wondering about MH too?

Etc etc etc for interested onlookers https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2020/september/dwp-launches-case-trawl-review-exercise-identify-pip-claimants-owed-benefit

My client received 2 separate review forms - both issued after both MM and MH. I didn’t think too much of it, just chalked it up to usual DWP inefficiencies. 

EDIT: I was looking for the decision, but can’t remember the client’s name atm.

You have to remember that “LEAP review” is not a meaningful description of the legal process involved. You need to assess what is actually happening.

Where these cases involve any time revision for official error, the general narrative is:
1. You receive a letter stating that your award has been looked at but not revised under the review.
2. You are invited to request ‘mandatory reconsideration’ of this conclusion.
3. You request ‘mandatory reconsideration’ on the basis that the decision did indeed contain errors which ought to have been picked up in the review.
4. You get a ‘mandatory reconsideration notice’ upholding the conclusions of the review
5. You appeal.

The legally significant step here is step 3. What the claimant is doing here is making a request for any time revision of the original decision based on official error. The LEAP review has simply prompted that request. When that request is refused, they have satisfied the reg 7 D&A requirement with respect to the original decision, per PH & SM v SSWP [2018] UKUT 404 (AAC). That then enables an appeal to be brought against the original decision, but that appeal is limited to those grounds on which the request for any time revision was made.

You can’t raise random unrelated issues at this appeal, because its limited to considering whether there was a well-founded official error complaint in the original decision. I doubt that you can raise different error of law points at the appeal either.

But what is not restricted is the ability of your client to request any time revision. Just because the LEAP letter only refers to consideration of one particular type of error of law, doesn’t prevent you raising other errors of law in your revision request. The LEAP review does not preclude or override your client’s ability to request any time revision.

So, at ‘step 3’ as I have defined it above, your client could raise alternative errors of law which were not considered by the LEAP review and then appeal when the DWP refuses to revise. Equally, you client could request any time revision for official error at any given point completely separately from the LEAP review and bring the issue to appeal having done so.

I think where the LEAP review involves a refusal to supersede a decision for error of law, the issue is simpler because there is a right of appeal against the refusal to revise directly and the tribunal would just stand in the shoes of the decision maker in the ordinary way, without the need necessarily to adopt the more convoluted aspects of the logic of PH; so I think that it would be simpler to raise alternative grounds or bases for supersession in such a case.

Elliot Kent - 18 August 2023 09:42 PM

You have to remember that “LEAP review” is not a meaningful description of the legal process involved. You need to assess what is actually happening.

Where these cases involve any time revision for official error, the general narrative is:
1. You receive a letter stating that your award has been looked at but not revised under the review.
2. You are invited to request ‘mandatory reconsideration’ of this conclusion.
3. You request ‘mandatory reconsideration’ on the basis that the decision did indeed contain errors which ought to have been picked up in the review.
4. You get a ‘mandatory reconsideration notice’ upholding the conclusions of the review
5. You appeal.

The legally significant step here is step 3. What the claimant is doing here is making a request for any time revision of the original decision based on official error. The LEAP review has simply prompted that request. When that request is refused, they have satisfied the reg 7 D&A requirement with respect to the original decision, per PH & SM v SSWP [2018] UKUT 404 (AAC). That then enables an appeal to be brought against the original decision, but that appeal is limited to those grounds on which the request for any time revision was made.

You can’t raise random unrelated issues at this appeal, because its limited to considering whether there was a well-founded official error complaint in the original decision. I doubt that you can raise different error of law points at the appeal either.

But what is not restricted is the ability of your client to request any time revision. Just because the LEAP letter only refers to consideration of one particular type of error of law, doesn’t prevent you raising other errors of law in your revision request. The LEAP review does not preclude or override your client’s ability to request any time revision.

So, at ‘step 3’ as I have defined it above, your client could raise alternative errors of law which were not considered by the LEAP review and then appeal when the DWP refuses to revise. Equally, you client could request any time revision for official error at any given point completely separately from the LEAP review and bring the issue to appeal having done so.

I think where the LEAP review involves a refusal to supersede a decision for error of law, the issue is simpler because there is a right of appeal against the refusal to revise directly and the tribunal would just stand in the shoes of the decision maker in the ordinary way, without the need necessarily to adopt the more convoluted aspects of the logic of PH; so I think that it would be simpler to raise alternative grounds or bases for supersession in such a case.

Missed this post, thanks for the above Elliot.