Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Tribunal restored original award which already ended and didn’t extend term. Client is left with a gap in her award.
This is my first post -apologies for the length and for any duplicating! I saw a couple of threads with similar issues, but still, I’m not sure how to proceed!....(e.g. https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/11394/ (but here the initial award hadn’t terminated)).
The situation is this:
-PIP was awarded at an appeal on 22/09/15, from 22/10/2014 to 21/10/2017. Cl was awarded the DL- Standard (1b, 3b, 4b, 6b, 10b) and Mobility- Enhanced: 1d and 2b
-Cl received the PIP ‘invite’ review letter on 21/10/2016
-Award review dated 31/01/2017: DL- Standard (1b, 4b, 5b, 6b) and Mob- Standard: 2d - From 31/01/2017 to 30/01/2020
- Cl appealed Mobility component- Planning and following. The DWP was correct in awarding the Moving Around (2d) as client’s condition has actually worsened. However, it didn’t take into account her issues with planning and following.
-MR Decision Notice 07/04/2017 as review decision.
-SSCS1 received by HMCTS 05/05/17.
-Appeal on 02/02/2018. (Allowed) BUT Tribunal only considered that DWP failed to identify basis of supersession and reinstated the old decision. However, old decision was only until 21/10/17. FTT remitted case to DWP for reconsideration. FTT didn’t consider / explore any activities. Didn’t even consider that DWP had accepted cl’s mobility had deteriorated.
- DWP writes on 06/02/18 and advises to make a fresh claim.
- Client makes a fresh claim on 09/03/18 (PIP 2 not returned yet).
- I’ve asked for a SOR and RoP – still waiting
Questions:
1. From previous experience, on similar cases, the tribunal looks at whether there has been an improvement identified by the DWP such that the award is no longer valid and can therefore be terminated early. If, like in this case, the client actually claimed that her circumstances had worsened, the tribunal had always considered the evidence with the view of increasing the award for a fresh term.
As the previous award has already ended, is the tribunal right in just looking at the supersession issue and not extending the term of the existing award, given that there was enough medical evidence and the DWP didn’t show reasons for decreasing her Mobility (1)?– or at least enough to give her time to be reassessed, so there wouldn’t be a gap on her claim?
I feel it’s really unjust that the initial award was restored but not extended so the client is left with a gap in her award.
2. As the Tribunal decided that DWP had no grounds to supersede the award of PIP, this means that the decision of 31.1.17 (which reduced the award) should never have been made. Does this mean that the DWP still need to make a valid decision on the renewal?
3. Cl has now made a fresh claim but she’s very anxious about the medical assessment. In reality, are there any chances of not having to undergo a medical?
4. What would happen for the period 21/10/17 to now?
5. The tribunal suggested that we should have advised the client to put a fresh application as soon as the review decision was notified. Does anyone follow this practise? Should we start advising clients of this? I feel it’s putting more pressure on vulnerable clients and wasting time for everybody concerned…
Again, apologies for the long post and so many questions! Also if the answers are already on another thread(s)!
Thank you!