PIP - successful appeal but award end date already passed

It sounds like the Tribunal has adopted the logic that regulation 26 magically doesn’t exist and therefore they have no power to interfere with an existing award absent a change of circumstances (as per the case you mentioned at post 8 in this thread: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/11394). I would suggest that the logic of that approach is simply non-existent for the reasons I mentioned in that thread.

I would be interested to know if its the same judge

Get an SOR.

My very limited take on this is, renewal claims, arriving before the end of a defined PIP award exist as to determine future eligibility beyond the end of the defined award period. While I understand that a nil determination cannot or should not stop an award before the end of the existing period, it still does not detract from the original purpose of an assessment taking place; that being to determine future eligibility beyond the end of the current award period.

Elliot Kent - 02 August 2017 05:46 PM

It sounds like the Tribunal has adopted the logic that regulation 26 magically doesn’t exist and therefore they have no power to interfere with an existing award absent a change of circumstances (as per the case you mentioned at post 8 in this thread: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/11394). I would suggest that the logic of that approach is simply non-existent for the reasons I mentioned in that thread.

I would be interested to know if its the same judge

Get an SOR.

I don’t think reg 26 helps unless there is an ‘identifiable CoC’ regarding a ‘material fact.’ I find it to be a circular argument. Yes a form can be issued up to six months before the scheduled end date under reg 11 but it’s essentially a fishing trip. If nothing is caught then the award continues to renewal phase.

I’ve not found any mechanism to safely submit that an award can be interfered with on any grounds beyond one month for the SSWP or 13months for the claimant.

I’m making submissions to reflect this at present - I welcome the argument to show that the SSWP has the power to change awards, in effect, at will.

I think the safest thing to do until anything is confirmed is to advise on a renewal claim within the six months before the award is/was due to end.

This should form part of the initial advice given.

In the event of a reinstated award either end of an ‘empty’ period a complaint could be made to the DWP/ICE for maladministration and compensation of an amount equal to that lost.

John Birks - 24 August 2017 12:53 PM

I don’t think reg 26 helps unless there is an ‘identifiable CoC’ regarding a ‘material fact.’

Reg 26 (1)(a) allows supersession on the grounds of receipt of medical evidence

JoW - 02 August 2017 12:38 PM

Claimant did MR and the appealed the appeal was finally heard last month and was successful in that the DWPs latest decision was set aside. However the previous award ended entitlement in May 17. PIP are saying they can only pay until that date.

I would second a SoR request….

Why was the decision set aside rather than remade?

I don’t really follow John. Reg 26(1)(a) doesn’t require a change in circs - it requires new medical evidence. If there is new medical evidence, the award can be superseded. 99% of the time, the new medical evidence will be a second or third HCP report commissioned by the DWP.

Suppose the claimant has an award of SR/SR from 01/01/16 - 01/01/18. Medical evidence is received today saying that SR/SR continues to be the correct level of award. The DM supersedes and awards SR/SR from 24/08/17 - 24/08/20. That’s a very simple case where reg 26 is used to supersede without a CoC.

I accept that there may be cases where a very short term award reaches the end date prior to a review being carried out and reg 26 doesn’t help in these cases but thats a very different scenario to the one set out by JoW.

Elliot Kent - 24 August 2017 04:11 PM

I don’t really follow John. Reg 26(1)(a) doesn’t require a change in circs - it requires new medical evidence. If there is new medical evidence, the award can be superseded. 99% of the time, the new medical evidence will be a second or third HCP report commissioned by the DWP.

Suppose the claimant has an award of SR/SR from 01/01/16 - 01/01/18. Medical evidence is received today saying that SR/SR continues to be the correct level of award. The DM supersedes and awards SR/SR from 24/08/17 - 24/08/20. That’s a very simple case where reg 26 is used to supersede without a CoC.

I accept that there may be cases where a very short term award reaches the end date prior to a review being carried out and reg 26 doesn’t help in these cases but thats a very different scenario to the one set out by JoW.

This is as I see it:

Reg 26 looks and says like a new medical report provides grounds for a supersession.

I say it only says so where there is a material fact - taking 26 as a whole -see below.

Medical evidence and limited capability for work etc.
26.—(1) ... a personal independence payment decision ...may be superseded where, since the decision was made, the Secretary of State has— (a)received medical evidence from a healthcare professional or other person approved by the Secretary of State

(3) In this regulation ... “personal independence payment decision” ... has the meaning given in Schedule 1 (effective dates for superseding decisions made on the ground of a change of circumstances);

SCHEDULE 1 12.  Subject to the following provisions of this Part and to Part 4, in the case of personal independence payment, a superseding decision made on the ground of a change of circumstances takes effect on the date on which the relevant change of circumstances occurs or is expected to occur.

The rest of the argument is in the attached document - I welcome all views.

Just to add to that found above, in not providing info – i.e. Failing to reply providing a completed claim form or respond appropriately to the DWP when prompted on review would not mean a ‘negative determination’ akin to not attending or failing to engage in a medical but would deploy the suspension and termination regs at 45 of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decision and Appeals) Regulations 2013 and 38 of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Claims and Payments) Regulations 2013.

45 begins with ... This regulation applies where ... information or evidence from a person ... in order to determine whether a decision awarding a benefit should be revised under section 9 of the 1998 Act or superseded under section 10 of that Act.