Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
DWP requesting reasons for PIP award
It’s happening more and more. However, I think these requests are vexatious, especially, when the DWP did not bother to send a PO. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.
In my opinion, we need to keep a database of instances. I believe the DWP has a blanket policy to challenge awards by Tribunals, which involve both components. The purpose to abuse the upper tribunal to try to overturn the decision. The proper way is to send a PO to the FTT. This is a waste of the public purse. I’m going to complain to the PIP. Anyone experienced similar.
i don’t see how you can argue that requesting reasons is vexatious. you can’t say they should have sent a PO since that would enable DWP to say that a claimant who didn’t attend a tribunal (perhaps because s/he erroneously thought it could be dealt with on paper) should equally not be entitled to a statement of reasons…...
A Judge told me recently that they’re expecting to issue more statements as the new POs come on board; they’re requesting them as a training facility.
I can’t see how requesting a statement of reasons makes you a litigant let alone a vexatious one. I agree that the general trend is abuse of the judiciary and judicial process but I can’t see how asking for a statement enters into that. Indeed I am aware of at least one WRO who requests a statement every time without fail!
There has been an ongoing and I suspect quite tetchy conversation between DWP and HMCTS about DMs being able to understand FTT decisions. TS obviously take the “turn up; participate and hear first hand approach” whilst DWP want to take a “that’s not always possible so we need better summary decisions” approach. The latter was piloted and didn’t really improve anything so it’s hardly a shock that the next best thing is to request a SOR and ROP. I remain anecdotally unconvinced that is bringing UT to it’s knees as a proper read of a full SOR is often a sobering read for DMs and many can’t bear to send it off for legal scrutiny such is their embarrassment at the way in which the original DM decision was picked apart.
I’m quite chilled about DWP doing this tbh as it’s like having terrible 1970s POs all over again and it’s lovely. It’s winding up FTTs no end, not least the judges, and it’s ultimately playing out in favour of appellants. YMMV.
A vexatious litigant is someone who brings repeated frivolous lawsuits usually against the same defendant, or someone with a history of bringing unmeritorous claims. I suspect the DWP is simply trying to get a feel for tribunals general approaches to certain aspects of certain descriptors as PIP begins to bed in
I took this up at a stakeholder group. ive had a few cases where the DWP havent sent a PO then requested the sor. it seems to me to be an entirely random process of selection and thats no way for a public body to behave.
they may want sor’s for training/some policy purpose but they are basically just selecting folk at random and adding even more of a delay onto things.
in a current case my client has since started work and he cant get wtc yet as a disabled worker and his dad cant get carers allowance due to them withholding payment. in order to protect backdating ive had them make the claims knowing they would be refused.
ive also had to keep the case open, administrate for the sor, keep client and support staff updated…
i asked the pip rep at the meeting on what basis cases were selected and they said on the decision notice but thats unlikely to stand up to scrutiny.
Perhaps I did not express my thoughts adequately. The point I was making is that the DWP is requesting SoRs in cases, which the Department has not sent a PO. If permission to appeal is granted it would be trying to argue its case in the UT, when it had every opportunity to argue it in the FTT. If SoRs become the norm, I.e. the DWP has a blanket policy. In cases heard without a PO. It must follow that this is an abuse of process. I’m not saying requesting reasons is abuse of process. However, if the case progresses to the UT, then I would include abuse of the process in my argument.
I can’t see how requesting a statement of reasons makes you a litigant let alone a vexatious one. I agree that the general trend is abuse of the judiciary and judicial process but I can’t see how asking for a statement enters into that. Indeed I am aware of at least one WRO who requests a statement every time without fail!
There has been an ongoing and I suspect quite tetchy conversation between DWP and HMCTS about DMs being able to understand FTT decisions. TS obviously take the “turn up; participate and hear first hand approach” whilst DWP want to take a “that’s not always possible so we need better summary decisions” approach. The latter was piloted and didn’t really improve anything so it’s hardly a shock that the next best thing is to request a SOR and ROP. I remain anecdotally unconvinced that is bringing UT to it’s knees as a proper read of a full SOR is often a sobering read for DMs and many can’t bear to send it off for legal scrutiny such is their embarrassment at the way in which the original DM decision was picked apart.
I’m quite chilled about DWP doing this tbh as it’s like having terrible 1970s POs all over again and it’s lovely. It’s winding up FTTs no end, not least the judges, and it’s ultimately playing out in favour of appellants. YMMV.
Mike, it’s also possible Judges will dismiss appeals because it lightens their work?
If permission to appeal is given in a particular case then that can only be on an identified point of law and thus it doesn’t follow that that is abuse of process. It’s the exercise of a legal right. But, if it comes to pass that the DWP starts appealing cases en masse then it would be open to argument abuse of process at some point in the future
Perhaps I did not express my thoughts adequately. The point I was making is that the DWP is requesting SoRs in cases, which the Department has not sent a PO. If permission to appeal is granted it would be trying to argue its case in the UT, when it had every opportunity to argue it in the FTT. If SoRs become the norm, I.e. the DWP has a blanket policy. In cases heard without a PO. It must follow that this is an abuse of process. I’m not saying requesting reasons is abuse of process. However, if the case progresses to the UT, then I would include abuse of the process in my argument.
sorry, terry, but i fundamentally disagree with your view on this. i really cannot understand how it can be argued that requesting a SoR can be an abuse of process. that’s what the process is and everyone is entitled to request one. even in cases where they’ve got what they wanted (since there are, of course, justifiable reasons for finding out why you got what you wanted - particularly if you didn’t expect to!).
you might as well say judges should never issue judgements in e.g. small claims cases. but they do. granted they’re not written but spoken, but are on tape and a transcript can be requested if required…...
If permission to appeal is given in a particular case then that can only be on an identified point of law and thus it doesn’t follow that that is abuse of process. It’s the exercise of a legal right. But, if it comes to pass that the DWP starts appealing cases en masse then it would be open to argument abuse of process at some point in the future
Thanks, you’ve got it spot on!
Perhaps I did not express my thoughts adequately. The point I was making is that the DWP is requesting SoRs in cases, which the Department has not sent a PO. If permission to appeal is granted it would be trying to argue its case in the UT, when it had every opportunity to argue it in the FTT. If SoRs become the norm, I.e. the DWP has a blanket policy. In cases heard without a PO. It must follow that this is an abuse of process. I’m not saying requesting reasons is abuse of process. However, if the case progresses to the UT, then I would include abuse of the process in my argument.
sorry, terry, but i fundamentally disagree with your view on this. i really cannot understand how it can be argued that requesting a SoR can be an abuse of process. that’s what the process is and everyone is entitled to request one. even in cases where they’ve got what they wanted (since there are, of course, justifiable reasons for finding out why you got what you wanted - particularly if you didn’t expect to!).
you might as well say judges should never issue judgements in e.g. small claims cases. but they do. granted they’re not written but spoken, but are on tape and a transcript can be requested if required…...
Thanks Claire, all opinions are helpful as your take on it.
[ Edited: 22 Jun 2017 at 08:14 pm by Terry Craven ]
Would it perhaps be fairer to say the DWP should not delay payment, if they are just requesting a statement for the purposes of training or research into tribunals reasoning?
Mike, it’s also possible Judges will dismiss appeals because it lightens their work?
Well it’s possible. I’m not sure it’s realistic though. Salaried judges get paid regardless and will have plenty of work. Dismissing anything probably isn’t going to lighten their workload. Fee paid judges get paid for the work they do so I’m not sure how it would work in their interests either.
Would it perhaps be fairer to say the DWP should not delay payment, if they are just requesting a statement for the purposes of training or research into tribunals reasoning?
Yes, this.
Would it perhaps be fairer to say the DWP should not delay payment, if they are just requesting a statement for the purposes of training or research into tribunals reasoning?
This appears to be the main issue - there is no real problem in requested SoR - in fact I find it a bit odd that SoR are produced as a matter of course. But the problem is when the DWP then decide to suspend payment.
There is no requirement for them to do so - full guidance is here - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/607742/suspension-termination-guide.pdf
I know cases when escalation of an unfair suspension of an award has led to it being lifted and from the guidance it seems DWP are concerned about the threat of a judicial review.