× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

Appeal Decision

Gail Knight
forum member

Welfare rights - Halton Council

Send message

Total Posts: 103

Joined: 13 July 2010

I had a case due to be heard last week I used CPIP/3556/2016 as the only basis of my submission

client knew if successful his award would only run to its original end date 31/8/17 and would need to make a new claim as unlikely DWP will invite a renewal, as DWP ended his claim earlier than original tribunal ordered in Dec 2016 he was happy with this route.

Morning of appeal call to say don’t attend Judge agrees changing decision customer happy.

Decision received in the post the tribunals make no reference to the fact they changing based on CPIP/3556/2016 just states in reaching its decision tribunal placed particular reliance of the totality of the evidence.

I was very disappointed in this as they have not identified to DWP they used this decision.

I am minded to write for a SOR .

 

Jon (CANY)
forum member

Welfare benefits - Craven CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 1362

Joined: 16 June 2010

It was once pointed out to me, when I was writing for an SOR in a case that went our client’s way, that just because DWP may not have requested the SOR themselves, when they receive it they can still check the statement for any errors of law. I would make sure that your client is aware of any risks.

Ed Pybus
forum member

Welfare rights worker for disabled children and families - CPAG in Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 40

Joined: 19 September 2012

what was the new decision?

Gail Knight
forum member

Welfare rights - Halton Council

Send message

Total Posts: 103

Joined: 13 July 2010

The new decision just stated appellant meets the points for an award of SDL

proceeded to give the points and awarded for the exact same period as first tribunal but with no reference as to why they came to the decision.

Which was disappointing as I at lease expected a note to say original tribunal decision should never have been changed