PC claim closed due to cl not supplying info needed within 1 month

I am dealing with an elderly couple, who previously wouldn’t have been entitled to PC due to high State Pensions, but since both were awarded AA, they can now claim due to SDPx2 (no CP because too ill to look after each other).  I did a claim on paper and posted it 23rd March 2011.  Cls have low savings and incomes of State Pensions only.  Apparently cls supplied further info several times.  Unfortunately they posted an unsigned MI12 form (mortgage interest) back to the DWP instead of to their lender.  Their claim for PC has now been closed and I was told they had to do a new claim, which I will do.  However, does anyone know of any regulations/case law that I can use to try and get their original claim reinstated?  I was wondering if they could have been awarded the basic PC without the mortgage interest being added.

The one month is a MINIMUM period.  The legislation plainly states the time limit is “...within one month…or such longer period as the relevant authority may consider reasonable….”.  Submit an appeal against the “closed” decision on the grounds a) the DWP has not taken into account your client’s individual circumstances / frailties (evidenced by the fact they are not even able to care for each other); b) the one month limit is a MINIMUM and c) the failure of the DWP to consider the provision in this case is unreasonable and amounts to a fettering of discretion.

I would cover all bases and submit a new claim but on the strict qualification that it is without prejudice to the appeal made against the “nil” decision.

Hopefully, others can cite the actual legislation - I’m done for… :-) .

As far as I can see there are two possible approaches to this.  The first is if the initial PC form is seen by itself as “the claim” and is not defective then it would be right to pay PS without the housing costs.  So the Department’s decision would be wrong.

I’m not sure that approach is correct.  I think that the MI12 is part of the initial claim and not subsidiary to it.  If that is correct then the claim is defective and the Department must, under reg 7 of the Claims and Payments regs 1987, notify the claimant of the defect and give him the opportunity to rectify it within one month or, as Kevin has said, “such longer period as the Secretary of State may consider reasonable from the date on which the claimant is first advised of the defect…”  If this approach is correct and the department did not follow reg 7 at all then its decision is absolutely unsustainable.

You should follow Kevin’s advice.  I would argue the second approach at the hearing using the first approach as an alternative.

Thanks for all the advice - I have helped cls put in a new claim for PC on paper form, asked for reinstatement of the original claim and once I have a written decision I can take it further if necessary.  I have also applied for CAx2.  The plot thickens however.  It turns out that the cl had supplied the MI12 to their lender and it was returned to the DWP in May, but DWP can’t trace the MI12.  The lender didn’t keep a copy or send it recorded delivery.  Any further advice?

I too am working with clients that have had their PC claim closed in March 2011 for the same reasons.
It transpired that the MI12 in my case had actually been received by the DWP some 8 weeks prior to the claim being closed. However the primary claimant as shown on the PC claim form did not have a mortgage. His wife who soley owns the property, obtained a mortgage in her name only. Hence the MI12 was not ‘connected’ to the PC claim.
DWP admit now that they had the MI12 but that it had been misfiled.
Unfortunately the DWP would not re-open the closed claim and following an appeal, the case is to be heard by the 1st tier on the 8/12/11
In this particular case, Guaranteed PC would only have been given if housing costs were granted. (Total income £1.72 above the weekly limit).
Additionally I also found out recently that the wfe has an underlying entitlement to CA as from Jan 2011, but was never considered by the DWP.

I will be representing them.

Just an update on my case.

Attended the Tribunal with client. Despite my submissions and evidence that the MI12 had in fact been received by the Pension Service prior to the case being closed, it was held that the despite this, the client did not ensure that he had carried out his responsibilities in a timely manner. It was stated that it was not for the Pension Service to ‘chase up’ documents, that was the responsibility of the claimant.

‘As this is an absolute requirement’ appeal was dismissed????

Application for appeal submitted.

This suggests that it’s your client’s fault for not checking that the Pension Service has properly processed the information they sent them?

seand - 16 February 2012 04:27 PM

This suggests that it’s your client’s fault for not checking that the Pension Service has properly processed the information they sent them?

Agreed

The question I pose is who is responsible? The DWP for not dealing with documents properly or the claimant for not continually reminding the DWP to do their job properly?

Unless the DWP come under a totally different set of rules of conduct to any and all other government departments and agencies, it is for the DWP, in my opinion, to ensure that they conduct themselves and their work in such a manner that this particular incident should never have happened in the first place. It is certainly not for a member of the public to ensure that their work is of a sufficiently high enough standard!

But hey, I only spent 60% of my career with HMRC and latterly with the Insolvency Service.