PIP appeals and DWP “offers”

Does anyone have any experience in pursuing a PIP case to appeal, where the claimant has already accepted an “offer” of an award by the DWP and agreed to lapse the original appeal?

I have a client with a mix of physical and mental health problems whose claim for PIP was refused with 0 points. I argued for 12 daily living and 8 mobility points in the MR, but the decision remained unchanged so I lodged an appeal with him.

He was contacted by the DWP and offered just the standard rate DL with 8 points, on the promise of not having to go to the appeal. He accepted the offer without consulting with me, as he didn’t feel able to ask the DWP for time to think about their offer. However, he has now spoken with me and I confessed to him that I was rather disappointed by the offer he has accepted as I still think he should have enhanced DL and standard mobility.

I understand that we can still lodge another appeal at this point, but am interested to hear anyone’s experience of doing so and what the outcome was.

Have you read this helpful article from CPAG?

https://cpag.org.uk/welfare-rights/resources/article/offer-you-cant-refuse

thanks, yes I have, but I am really looking for some personal experiences of what outcomes people have had with a hearing after an offer.

*Still not what you asked for*

I’ve had a couple of these cases, and neither of them wanted to proceed to appeal, despite good chances of success.

If it had progressed to appeal, it would have resolved just like any other, and decided on the individual merits of your case.

Although I suspect this is a ‘haggling’ exercise by DWP - offering the client less trouble for less reward, I’d caution against assuming that the DWP concession means your case has a better chance of succeeding than other appeals. It might just have been picked up by a more competent DM.

I have exactly this on the go right now. Claimant with a VI who had a good shot at PIP DL and M at ER but took a call and didn’t realise what it meant. Award is the wrong rate and an insufficient period. Persuaded them that as soon as benefit went into payment we could lodge a further appeal so we’re just awaiting another bundle and a date (as nothing has changed in terms of the argument).

I’ve had a couple previously and the worrying thing is that the submission often doesn’t get amended to say that either the claimant is there because they rejected an offer or that this is appealing after an offer was accepted. Something to look out for.

The fact the claimant accepts an offer didn’t prejudice the approach of the tribunals I’ve had.

Hi

I had a case where the client had been offered SRDL and no mob which was incorrect as she should have had at least SRM. She had accepted the offer as she was unsure of what to do. She had contacted us before she did this as we had helped her with the original man recon on the phone but had not yet seen her at an appointment.  She then decided to take the offer. There was mention of this in the DWP submission that she had accepted the decision being revised.  She had done this because she had no money from PIP and could not afford to keep her car on the road and because she felt under pressure.  I made some brief comments to explain this in the submission but the tribunal as far as I am aware did not really ask her anything about this or dwell on this at any stage in the proceedings.

At the end of the day the day there is no legally binding effect of taking an offer and the tribunal I suppose are ultimately interested in if she meets the statutory criteria or not. Someone is just saying I would prefer you to revise the decision to one closer to the correct one than the original. If she accepted a decision that was closer to the correct decision than the original or having no award at all then I think taking a negative view on this would be somewhat unreasonable.

Thanks

Rob
NCCWRS

DWP are always able to revise a decision and lapse an appeal irrespective of the claimant’s views. If a claimant agrees to the revision, that in no way limits their ability to lodge a further appeal against the revised decision. DWP are going to refer to the circumstances of the revision in their submission because to fail to do so would be to mislead the Tribunal - but it isn’t something which is really of any relevance to what the Tribunal has to consider.

Agreeing to revision and then appealing anyway will often be a sensible strategy because it means that benefit will be in payment whilst the appeal goes ahead and the provisions relating to tribunals reducing awards will apply. But equally other claimants may not want to go to the back of the queue by lodging a further appeal against the same decision.

Unless we change the rules so that PIP is either awarded at ER/ER for life or is not awarded at all, there are always going to be cases where someone gets an award somewhere in the middle and has to decide whether its worth the trouble of arguing for more.

Many thanks @Mike Hughes and Rob @Julie1, sounds encouraging from your experiences to press on for an appeal for the correct rates of PIP

I have just such a case on 06 Feb, Tracy. Will let you know the outcome.

For what its worth the paragraph in R(IS)15/04 Martin Williams refers to reads

  It is of course true that both section 9 and regulation 3 state that the original decision “may be revised” by the Secretary of State in certain circumstances. However, section 10 and regulation 6 use the wording “may be superseded”, and it is implicit in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Wood v. Secretary of State [2003] EWCA Civ 53 (reported as R(DLA) 1/03) that a claimant who establishes a ground for supersession which requires a change to the original decision is entitled to have that decision superseded. There may be a residual discretion in the Secretary of State not to revise or supersede (e.g. if it is clear that a revision or supersession of the original decision favourably to the claimant would not, when his benefit position is looked at overall, benefit him). In essence, however, the claimant is in our view entitled to revision of a decision which, owing to an official error, was less favourable to him than it should have been.   

I think Martin is right when he says that the “haggling” exercise we sometime come across is not lawful, but I usually just advise my client to accept the offer and that we can then consider submitting a fresh appeal.

I have never had any problems with this approach so far. 

My client’s’ appeals may be delayed a bit but they have substantially more to live on while they are waiting