Increasing DLA when no change of circs

Hello

I always struggle with this so any advice/thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

I have a client with learning disabilities who has been in receipt of low rate care component for about 7/8 years. I think it is an indefinate award. When I met her she clearly qualifies for low rate mobility and possibly a higher rate of care component. However there has been no real change of circs - I just think the original decision was wrong.

If I complete a supsersession form will the DCS refuse to look at as there has been no change of circs?

Only other thing is that she started being treated for depression about 4 years ago (after her mother died) although she is actually much better now. If I put depression on the form will that meet the change of circs even though it is her learning disability that leads to a case for low rate mobility, rather than her depression.

I am not expecting to get low rate mobility back to date of original claim just get her on the right rates now.

Thanks

Hi,

Change of circs is only one of the possible grounds for a supersession.

Another ground is that the original decision was made on the basis of a mistake about, or in ignorance of facts (CPAG p 1137)

Jane

Hi Jane

Sorry I wasn’t very clear. I’m not sure arguing that the decision was made due to a mistake about or ignorance of material fact would work as the material fact was that she had learning disabilities (which I assume they knew but just didn’t think she met the conditions for low rate mobility component). Ideally she would have appealed at the time.

Do you think asking for an anytime supsersession now on the basis that she did meet the grounds for low rate mobility component when she first claimed but this wasn’t awarded would succeed (assuming they decide she does)? Payment would just be from when we asked for it to be superseded?

Thanks

Hi,

But the material fact might be that she has always needed guidance or supervision to walk on unfamiliar routes. Maybe she didn’t explain this on the original claim, so the decision was made in ignorance of this fact.

In practice I find that you don’t need to get into detail about what your grounds for supersession are with the DWP, it’s only at tribunal that they want to know the grounds.

Jane

Great. Thanks a lot!

Although the more I think about it, maybe needing guidance/supervision to walk etc is a conclusion from the facts rather than a fact itself? But if the original decision was that wrong you would hope there was some fact missing from the claim.

I’m sure some claims and decisions law nerds will turn up and comment soon :)

Yes that’s what I’m worried about. I remember having a blind client who was only getting low rate mob and low rate care and I was trying to get middle rate care but DCS said there was no change of circs as client was blind when first claimed and that hadn’t changed. His care needs where the same too but I just thought he should have always had middle rate care but he hadn’t challanged the original decision 5 + years previously. 

Hopefully DCS will not be too particular!

Thanks

In Saker - reported as R(I) 2/88, the court of appeal said:

“iii a fact is a material fact if it is a fact:
a. which would have influenced the judgment of the medical board. It is not
necessary that it would have led to a different result—Lloyd LJ;
b. which would have called for serious consideration by the board and
might well have affected its decision”—NicholIs LJ;