Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Are there circumstances when DWP would pay claimants to withdraw PIP appeals?
Unsurprisingly, DWP written answer is no ... but raises the question why did Karen Buck need to ask in the first place?
They do offer to change the decision however, if the claimant withdraws the appeal. This is done by phone with no audit trail and for my money is bullying.. I had one recently and when I asked for details of the offer with an explanation of where the points were awarded, they politely refused and it is still going to appeal.
Sometimes they also make the ‘offer’ in an appeal submission in the form of ‘proposed revised decision’ and request the tribunal to make its decision on that basis.
Its a pity the PQ wasn’t more carefully worded.
I continue to think this is completely innocuous.
Our benefits system allows for ESA/PIP awards to be paid at different rates depending on the severity of the conditions. Necessarily, there will be cases where a DM looks at an appeal and thinks a claimant has been awarded less than they should have, but not as much as the claimant might think is correct.
The DM has three options:
1. Say nothing to anyone and just let the appeal carry on.
2. Lapse the appeal straight away. If the claimant is unhappy, they can file a new appeal. They then go to the back of the queue as far as the Tribunal are concerned.
3. Ask the claimant if they would be happy with the proposed award and lapse if they would be happy with the proposed award (they can still file a new appeal anyway if they change their mind).
Obviously, we are all familiar with option 2 - and have a natural aversion to the unfamiliar - but imo, it’s better to give the claimant some choice in the matter rather than just arbitrarily sending them a letter saying their appeal has lapsed and they’ll have to file a new one if they want to get anything better than standard rate mobility.
I do agree that all of this should be done sensitively, politely and transparently and should involve rather than exclude reps. There shouldn’t be any secret or unexplained offers, but that hasn’t been my experience.
I think this might have come about due to this recent tweet.
I continue to think this is completely innocuous.
Our benefits system allows for ESA/PIP awards to be paid at different rates depending on the severity of the conditions. Necessarily, there will be cases where a DM looks at an appeal and thinks a claimant has been awarded less than they should have, but not as much as the claimant might think is correct.
The DM has three options:
1. Say nothing to anyone and just let the appeal carry on.
2. Lapse the appeal straight away. If the claimant is unhappy, they can file a new appeal. They then go to the back of the queue as far as the Tribunal are concerned.
3. Ask the claimant if they would be happy with the proposed award and lapse if they would be happy with the proposed award (they can still file a new appeal anyway if they change their mind).Obviously, we are all familiar with option 2 - and have a natural aversion to the unfamiliar - but imo, it’s better to give the claimant some choice in the matter rather than just arbitrarily sending them a letter saying their appeal has lapsed and they’ll have to file a new one if they want to get anything better than standard rate mobility.
I do agree that all of this should be done sensitively, politely and transparently and should involve rather than exclude reps. There shouldn’t be any secret or unexplained offers, but that hasn’t been my experience.
my opinion would be different from this.
i feel its totally wrong for a decision making government body to allow an issue to arrive at an appeal tribunal where even they feel that the decision under appeal is wrong and then force/allow a tribunal to do its job for it (considering the decision as a whole).
i accept that revising where the claimant might appeal against the revised decision may cause delay, but at least everyone involved is clear in that case what the actual decision under appeal is. it would also allow the tribunal for example to say “well the DWP have awarded x, y and z so we have no need to consider that and can focus on..”.
ive raised a similar issue where they have tried the “client has carers allowance and the tribunal may want to look into that” approach. no, no, no. you are the decision making body, if you have an issue with this say it now and tell us what it is rather than tempt appeals into fishing trips on the basis of a claim that is perfectly allowed.
i know thats a bit of a tangent but i think its very important that the dwp arent allowed to move away from their responsibility as the original decision maker.
I continue to think this is completely innocuous.
Our benefits system allows for ESA/PIP awards to be paid at different rates depending on the severity of the conditions. Necessarily, there will be cases where a DM looks at an appeal and thinks a claimant has been awarded less than they should have, but not as much as the claimant might think is correct.
The DM has three options:
1. Say nothing to anyone and just let the appeal carry on.
2. Lapse the appeal straight away. If the claimant is unhappy, they can file a new appeal. They then go to the back of the queue as far as the Tribunal are concerned.
3. Ask the claimant if they would be happy with the proposed award and lapse if they would be happy with the proposed award (they can still file a new appeal anyway if they change their mind).Obviously, we are all familiar with option 2 - and have a natural aversion to the unfamiliar - but imo, it’s better to give the claimant some choice in the matter rather than just arbitrarily sending them a letter saying their appeal has lapsed and they’ll have to file a new one if they want to get anything better than standard rate mobility.
I do agree that all of this should be done sensitively, politely and transparently and should involve rather than exclude reps. There shouldn’t be any secret or unexplained offers, but that hasn’t been my experience.
my opinion would be different from this.
i feel its totally wrong for a decision making government body to allow an issue to arrive at an appeal tribunal where even they feel that the decision under appeal is wrong and then force/allow a tribunal to do its job for it (considering the decision as a whole).
i accept that revising where the claimant might appeal against the revised decision may cause delay, but at least everyone involved is clear in that case what the actual decision under appeal is. it would also allow the tribunal for example to say “well the DWP have awarded x, y and z so we have no need to consider that and can focus on..”.
ive raised a similar issue where they have tried the “client has carers allowance and the tribunal may want to look into that” approach. no, no, no. you are the decision making body, if you have an issue with this say it now and tell us what it is rather than tempt appeals into fishing trips on the basis of a claim that is perfectly allowed.
i know thats a bit of a tangent but i think its very important that the dwp arent allowed to move away from their responsibility as the original decision maker.
I think this is completely correct.
As to the original post I was thinking this was maybe a non appealable issue such as backdating a claim - perhaps as a result of a lost claim form perhaps and the ex-gratia payment was an alternative resolution to the dispute.
Equally it could have been any other argument as there is so little information.
The concern for me remains that a successful complaint against an assessment provider results in a new recommendation to a DM. The DM then makes an offer which is refused as we wish to proceed to appeal. Took me three goes to get the DWP to understand that an appeal sub which fails to mention the offer but describes it as what was originally assessed and which maintains the integrity of the original HCP in such circumstances is top notch is appalling.
Nothing innocuous about this at all. It’s a heady mix of poor process combined with miscommunication and administrative incompetence from start to finish.
At Citizens Advice I have had a couple of clients recently who have been rung by the DWP with a new offer of a standard award before the appeal is heard.
Both these clients may have won an enhanced award if they had continued to Tribunal but they did not wish to do this because of the stress they were experiencing from the whole appeal process.
At Citizens Advice I have had a couple of clients recently who have been rung by the DWP with a new offer of a standard award before the appeal is heard.
Both these clients may have won an enhanced award if they had continued to Tribunal but they did not wish to do this because of the stress they were experiencing from the whole appeal process.
Trawling online forums haunted by claimants one realises that this is a huge issue. I try to focus people on the length of the award as well as the amount. Given the option of accepting standard rate for 3 years or having a go at enhanced AND understanding it could be awarded for 10 years tends to turn this round but it depends on whether you can get to them before the damage is done.