× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

PIP Regulations 25-27

Stainsby
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Plumstead Community Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 613

Joined: 17 June 2010

DLA conversion case, client over 65 previously getting DLA low care high mobility

Standard daily living only awarded on conversion wef 1 Jan 2017

Client was unrepresented at the time and lost her appeal to the Tribunal and was refused leave to appeal to the UT (after applying direct to the UT)

Client applied for supersesssion on 19 Oct 2017 but refused as over 65.

Regulations 25-27 provide that the (PIP) mobility component can be awarded where there is no existing award but only if there was a previous award less than a year before.

Is there any mileage in arguing that in DLA conversion cases there is a lacuna here and the references to the mobility component of PIP must be read as if this includes an award of the mobility component of DLA?

Or are we looking at a JR on the ground that this discriminates against those over 65 but born after 8 April 1948 and who was entitled to the mobility component of DLA, and that this discrimination is manifestly without reasonable foundation?

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

Stainsby - 16 May 2019 10:53 AM

Regulations 25-27 provide that the (PIP) mobility component can be awarded where there is no existing award but only if there was a previous award less than a year before.

Do they?

Reg 25 permits entitlement to continue beyond the relevant age on an existing award. Fine.

Reg 26 is concerned with the limited ability to reclaim beyond the relevant age - but this isn’t a reclaim. It’s a supersession.

Reg 27(1) provides that awards can still be revised or superseded beyond the relevant age subject to reg 27(2).

Reg 27(2) is restrictive (not permissive) and prevents certain supersessions when an award of PIP mobility is already in place or (per reg 27(4)) has been in the past year. Neither restriction applies to your client as they have never received PIP mobility.

So are we not just left with an unrestricted power to supersede?

Rosie W
forum member

Welfare rights service - Northumberland County Council

Send message

Total Posts: 470

Joined: 9 February 2012

Elliot Kent - 16 May 2019 12:03 PM
Stainsby - 16 May 2019 10:53 AM


So are we not just left with an unrestricted power to supersede?

This is interesting as I have just dealt with a query from our Deputyship team for a client who went through DLA-PIP reassessment and lost mobility at the time. It wasn’t challenged at that point. He is now 69.

I’m inclined to try both an any time revision for official error (specific evidence in front of the DM not taken into account) and in the alternative a supersession.

If it goes anywhere I’ll post on here.

HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

Elliot Kent - 16 May 2019 12:03 PM
Stainsby - 16 May 2019 10:53 AM

Regulations 25-27 provide that the (PIP) mobility component can be awarded where there is no existing award but only if there was a previous award less than a year before.

Do they?

Reg 25 permits entitlement to continue beyond the relevant age on an existing award. Fine.

Reg 26 is concerned with the limited ability to reclaim beyond the relevant age - but this isn’t a reclaim. It’s a supersession.

Reg 27(1) provides that awards can still be revised or superseded beyond the relevant age subject to reg 27(2).

Reg 27(2) is restrictive (not permissive) and prevents certain supersessions when an award of PIP mobility is already in place or (per reg 27(4)) has been in the past year. Neither restriction applies to your client as they have never received PIP mobility.

So are we not just left with an unrestricted power to supersede?

Hmmm, interesting.  There is nothing to say that an award arising from a superseding decision that takes effect after the relevant age is reached can only include the mobility component in the circumstances provided for in Reg 27(3) and (4).  I assume that was the intention(and seems to be received wisdom) but there isn’t anything to say you cannot have the mobility component added to an award of DL only by way of a superseding decision after the relevant age.