Failure to attend

So, on the 8th an assessment had been booked. Letter didn’t arrive with client and good evidence of shaky post system so I am confident.

However, what’s picqued my interest is that there was no effort to ascertain the reasons for the FTA; simply a no good cause decision issued on the 11th.

I’ve got the contact log and they didn’t even try ringing.

That can’t be right… That renders the assessment of a person’s reasons defunct.

Thoughts?

Interesting. I’ve not seen the correspondence yet but I suspect that’s what’s just happened on one of mine. That said, the MR has already gone in explaining the reasons i.e. post not received and around 10 professionals involved, including some going in daily who ought to have been on top of it. Complaint also lodged about the fact that the claimant ought to have not had a face to face anyway.

Slightly different angle on the same area. I noted that ESA texts to remind people of appointments include seconds e.g. 13:15:00. Have a client who, I think quite understandably, under considerable strain read that as 15:00 and FTAd. Does the same happen with PIP texts? Struggling to think why even the micromanagers at DWP/ATOS et al would need to include seconds.

I’m doing an appeal on a failure to return PIP2 case at the moment and the DWP haven’t asked about good reason on that either. They simply sent a letter out a few days after the form was due back refusing it. There’s no reference in the appeal bundle to consideration of good reason.

I’ve got an FTA appeal in the pipeline as well where the claimant says the first they knew of the medical assessment was when they received the refusal letter.

This is contrary to the ADM (P2058) but appears to be standard practice.

There is nothing in the ESA or PIP Regs. that requires DWP to contact the claimant to ask their reasons for a FTA. The problem is the lack of consistency in what they do in practice (or how they address / evidence it in an appeal submission).

Attended a FtT regarding FTA recently and was pleased and surprised that the (fairly senior) Tribunal Judge was very cogniscent of the issues with notification of the appointments. Specifically this was about non-receipt of a letter - the DWP response was the classic “there is a statutory presumption that posted mail reaches the recipient” etc.

I thought it would be hard to demonstrate non-receipt (as have tried and failed before) but the Judge’s opening remark to the appellant was “would you be prepared to attend another appointment?”, which was obviously very promising. The Judge said that she had seen several similar cases recently where she had also allowed the appeals and was very dissatisfied with the DWP’s (lack of) effort to contact vulnerable clients to make further appointments.

On a related note, does anyone know if “Additional Support’ for certain types of health problem still exist?
My memory tells me it was only supposed to be an interim measure…....

Peter Turville - 19 July 2017 01:44 PM

There is nothing in the ESA or PIP Regs. that requires DWP to contact the claimant to ask their reasons for a FTA.

Wouldn’t it be Wednesbury irrational for them not to ask, considering the claimant’s ignorance of the requirement might constitute good cause?

Indeed. And that’s aside from the fact that even a claimant fully aware of the requirement might nnevertheless have good cause…..

This is due for hearing tomorrow; I hope I meet our new PO; Wednesbury’s local to us, he’ll likely get all confused 😊

PIP regs say that a negative determination can only be made if the action has been done “without good reason”.

I am unclear how you can say - on the balance of probabilities - that something has been done “without good reason” if you haven’t at least asked why it was done.

I am actually in Wednesbury as I type this and on my way home shall make a pilgrimage to the site of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd…

#justsaying

Any thoughts on how this sits with Reilly and the prior information requirement?

Mike Hughes - 26 July 2017 03:35 PM

Any thoughts on how this sits with Reilly and the prior information requirement?

I was distracted thinking about Rights of appeal by that bit…

If I lose tomorrow I will form an opinion.

Incidentally, the Savoy cinema in Wednesbury was demolished in ‘86 so my hopes of a photo are dashed.