DWP considering HRT when DWP had previously accepted Permanent Residence

How much of a waste of time and resources is it for the DWP to continually review HRT at new claim stage when they had previously decided client had gained a permanent right to reside, especially when they then decide that the client does not have a right to reside.

Client came to UK in 2008 from Poland, initial job was registered with WRS and lasted more than a year and relevant docs were provided to DWP along with other suitable evidence for his work/benefit history up to summer 2016 when he claimed JSA and they decided he failed HRT. After my intervention and assistance DWP issued a JSA MR letter on 8/3/17 accepting permanent right to reside on the basis of all information. He then moved back to ESA in July 17 and they considered HRT again but eventually accepted the previous decision re right to reside.

However client has now failed ESA WCA and had to claim UC and they have now decided that he does not satisfy any right to reside! How frustrating for the client to be put in this position when the DWP have all relevant information but it is a different part of the DWP and UC has no access to previous JSA decisions!! The additional work this generates for client/myself is vast but it will also take up UC DWP time as well as possibly HMCTS time!

If only UC decision makers had a grasp of right to reside issues!!  Client is married although separated and his Polish wife has been in full-time employment from her arrival, Decision Maker has not even looked at this!

Reminds me of a great case I had about a year ago.

Client claims UC. Refused. Claims again some months later - also refused. Puts in an MR and then appeal on the second claim. That appeal lapses when an appeals officer accepts that there was evidence that he had become a permanent resident on the day that Directive 2004/38/EC came into force because of work he had done in the 1990s.

We ask for an MR of the first decision in an effort to get the arrears between the two claims paid and a decision maker somewhat smugly refuses to revise the first decision on the basis that he isn’t bound by the appeals officer’s concessions and that he didn’t accept that the evidence proved permanent residence.

Obviously we put in an appeal which was promptly lapsed - I like to imagine by the same AO who had lapsed the first decision, and who I’m sure greatly appreciated being directly and needlessly contradicted by a junior officer. Just a massive waste of everybody’s time.

have to say, people, i always have to double take HRT - since i always think of hormone replacement therapy (not that i’ve needed it at all, but still ...)