Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Backdating SDP
Cl first met the conditions for SDP from 2015 when they were awarded PIPS. It does not look as if they notified ESA of the PIPS award or if ESA were notified the cl may not have completed and returned the IS10/ESA3.
Cl has moved and when telling ESA of new address the PIPS claim came to light and the SDP is now in payment. The question is how far should it be backdated as it has only been paid from the date of the move to a new address.
If, for the sake of argument, it is assumed the cl did not tell ESA about the PIPS back in 2015 it appears that the backdating is limited under Sch. 1 of the UC/PIP/JSA &ESA; (D&A) Regs 2013 as the cl failed to disclose a change in good time. I have however seen other posts that indicate that it should be backdated to the earliest date that all the SDP criteria apply- is there something I have missed?
Thanks for that it looks just the job- the only thing that slightly concerns me is the reference to the 1999 regs rather than the 2013 ones?
As I understand it, the 2013 regs apply to people who come under the UC system (i.e. those for whom IR ESA has been abolished), whereas the 1999 regs apply to people who do not.
See chapter 56 of the current CPAG handbook, particularly P.1312-1318.
As I understand it, the 2013 regs apply to people who come under the UC system (i.e. those for whom IR ESA has been abolished), whereas the 1999 regs apply to people who do not.
See chapter 56 of the current CPAG handbook, particularly P.1312-1318.
Old-style ESA is always dealt with under the 1999 Regs and as the SDP is only ever a factor in old-style, it will always be the 1999 Regs you need.
Thanks all!
This raises another interesting point. The client is currently on legacy benefits but will need to claim UC to get the Housing costs (moved from a different Council area) - If we put in an MR for the backdating of ESA and then the client moved to UC would that extinguish the backdating claim for ESA- logic tells me that that it shouldn’t as its an entirely separate matter from a closed past period but I wonder if anyone has had any previous experience of claims/recons in these circumstances?
There is absolutely no legal reason why making a UC claim should prevent you from pursuing whatever rights or remedies in relation to your previous benefit award. The question is whether the decision making was right at the time.
However, as a point of practical reality, it tends to be harder to get things resolved after an award has ended.
Thanks, its the practical reality bit that concerns me so perhaps we will launch an MR against the recent backdating decision on the grounds that it was legally incorrect and should have been backdated to the start of the PIPS award
Would the Northern Ireland case ( C009/20-21 (ESA)) be of help here?
It was an SDP issue, and outcome basically states Claimant entitled to assume decision made on award would be communicated to other relevant offices.
Hinchy should be dead in the water, as DWP use linked computer systems these days
good luck
I might have a similar case coming up so just want to check my understanding:
Client has been claiming ESA for past 10+ years.
Details are a bit unclear at this time, but I know she was transferred from DLA to PIP some years ago. Award levels have varied, but was MRC at least for some time before transferring to PIP, and PIP has always been at least SRDL. No SDP at any point.
As I understand it I could argue for backdating at least from when PIP was awarded. Alternatively, if DLA was changed at some point to -increase- the award level I could argue from that date (I’d assume the increase would have to be one that brought entitlement to the SDP where previously there wasn’t one, but 6(2)(e) of the 99 regs just say “...or an increase in the rate of another relevant benefit”?).
Best case scenario, as I understand it, ESA claimed first then DLA at at least MRC => SDP from this date.