× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

claiming PIP having turned 65

Dan Manville
forum member

Greater Manchester Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 458

Joined: 22 January 2020

Hi all

https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/rj-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip-2020-ukut-107-aac

In this recent decision Judge West held that people aren;t entitled to PIP if they claim for the first time post 65 and that bites for DLA tranfers as well where the claimant has turned 65 since Aprul 2013 but hasn’t converted yet.

The lacuna that led to this was rememdied by the PIP Transitional Provisions (Amendment) Regs 2019 to give scope for someone to receive “a concessionary payment made in lieu of personal independence payment under arrangements by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury.”

Have we heard anything about that scheme?

Also is the amendment to the transitional provisions really an effective remedy?

[ Edited: 15 Jun 2020 at 04:35 pm by Dan Manville ]
Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

The point made in the decision is that the DWP didn’t notice this lacuna and made decision in these cases as though it didn’t exist, so it should not have affected anyone other than the claimant in this case.

The new regs do provide for actual PIP entitlement for ‘lacuna cases’. The reference to a concessionary scheme is just to equate the position of someone receiving concessionary payments to that of someone receiving PIP proper.

Dan Manville
forum member

Greater Manchester Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 458

Joined: 22 January 2020

Elliot Kent - 15 June 2020 02:18 PM

The point made in the decision is that the DWP didn’t notice this lacuna and made decision in these cases as though it didn’t exist, so it should not have affected anyone other than the claimant in this case.

The new regs do provide for actual PIP entitlement for ‘lacuna cases’. The reference to a concessionary scheme is just to equate the position of someone receiving concessionary payments to that of someone receiving PIP proper.

I do get that but it still doesn’t feel right; there’s no detail about the concessionary scheme that I can find.

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

The reference to a “scheme” is my slip as the regs of course don’t refer to any scheme.

I suspect that the main point of the provision is to enable the concessionary award made to Mr RJ himself to be converted to an award of PIP proper.

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

Elliot Kent - 15 June 2020 05:31 PM

The reference to a “scheme” is my slip as the regs of course don’t refer to any scheme.

I suspect that the main point of the provision is to enable the concessionary award made to Mr RJ himself to be converted to an award of PIP proper.

So they regulated to amend the scheme in respect of the claimant RJ but have made no provision for anyone else caught in the same quandary?

I can’t find anything about a facility to access those concessionary payments…

edit: I should add that there is at least one person caught in the same position as RJ.

[ Edited: 19 Jun 2020 at 01:49 pm by Dan_Manville ]
Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

Dan_Manville - 19 June 2020 01:45 PM

edit: I should add that there is at least one person caught in the same position as RJ.

There shouldn’t be. DWP were unaware that these people were excluded from entitlement. There was no guidance referring to the lacuna and everyone thought it didn’t exist. Nobody should have lost out.

If you have found someone who did lose out, then I would imagine that if you can get through to the right people at DWP then they will look at a concessionary payment in a similar way.

[ Edited: 19 Jun 2020 at 01:56 pm by Elliot Kent ]
Terry Craven
forum member

Hope Advice Centre, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 85

Joined: 6 May 2018

I have a client who is 70,. He was not over 65 in April 2013.  He is the only person I know, who hasn’t been invited to claim PIP. At the moment he receives DLA HRC and HRM. Does this mean he will not be entitled to PIP Mobility?

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

The CASA - 28 July 2020 12:36 AM

I have a client who is 70,. He was not over 65 in April 2013.  He is the only person I know, who hasn’t been invited to claim PIP. At the moment he receives DLA HRC and HRM. Does this mean he will not be entitled to PIP Mobility?

PIP mobility could still be awarded if and when he is converted. See reg 27 TP Regs.