Revised or superseded?

Hi, 

Client had DLA indefinite award of HRM and LRC made in 1997, superseded in 2000 to HRM & MRC and again in 2005 to HRM & HRC.
Periodic review in 2009 superseded decision again from indefinite to limited to 2 year period as client was awaiting knee surgery (presumably anticipated relevent CoC)
Renewal form completed in 2011 and even though surgery was unsuccessful, as you’ve probably guessed already NIL award of either component!

Is this finally decision (2011) a revised or superseded decision.

I know it should be obvious but the more I think about it, the more my head spins!

Thanks
Sueky

neither a decision on renewal is a decision as on a new claim

Neither, it’s a new decision on a new claim.

If the 2011 decision doesn’t take effect from an effective date of an earlier decision, it is a supersession.

A revision is where an earlier decision is replaced from the effective date of that earlier decision.

I’m no expert on DLA but your post does appear to suggest there hasn’t been a change in circs.  If that is correct, there were no grounds on which the existing award could be superseded (or indeed revised).  Without grounds, there is no legal basis on which an award can be either superseded or revised.  I’m not sure the mere completion of a form constitutes “grounds” - unless there is an express provision to the contrary.

For DLA a renewal claim is a fresh claim.  Providing the decision maker decides nil entitlement from the day after the last day of entitlement of the previous award then it is a new decision.  The DM is under no legal obligation to show change of circumstances or anything else.  He merely has to decide entitlement on the basis of the evidence before him as to care needs/mobility problems at the date of the decision.  See R(M)1/96 for more on this.

On renewal claims the onus is on the claimant to show he still qualifies. Problems start when the DM tries to be clever and end the existing award prematurely.  Then as Kevin says it will be a supersession and grounds will have to be made out.  I’ve had one of these recently.

Of course it would be good practice for the DM to compare the merits of the previous award with current circumstances as claimants can often feel confused as to why they no longer qualify as, in their words, “nothing has changed”, and give a fuller explanation at the decision stage rather than in an appeal response.  But that, I guess, is a question of workload management by the DWP.

Thanks for the comments - much appreciated