Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Personal independence payment & other disability related benefits  →  Thread

PIP reassessment 4 years early

 

Billy Durrant
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 785

Joined: 22 July 2013

Client was awarded ERDL/ERM in 2016 with a Planned Intervention date of Sept 2021. Has now been called in for reassessment 4 years earlier than envisaged. No major changes to his health other than a brief admission to a psychiatric unit last month (mental health was a major reason for his award). No ESA assessments or changes of circs or permitted work or anything else that may have triggered it.

Whilst I understand that the DWP can reassess him any time it likes I am pretty suspicious about why it has chosen to do it 4 years early. Has anyone else had anything similar and did you get to the bottom of why it came about?

     
efloyd
forum member

Financial & Social Inclusion Officer, Isos Housing,Newcastle

Send message

Total Posts: 136

Joined: 16 June 2010

Did someone report to DWP he was hospitalised? If so I would think that may trigger a review - but would he not have had a review form to complete first - before being invited in for an assessment?
I had a recent case - 3 months after renewal (when she was awarded eDL and eMob) she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Knowing that she had to inform DWP of any changes she rang them to say she had cancer - out came a PIP2. A conversation with the decision maker ceased that review and she did not have to do it
(and rightly so of course).
It would seem any sniff of something different triggers a review even when it is plainly ridiculous to do one.

     
Billy Durrant
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 785

Joined: 22 July 2013

efloyd - 08 August 2017 03:36 PM

Did someone report to DWP he was hospitalised? If so I would think that may trigger a review - but would he not have had a review form to complete first - before being invited in for an assessment?

Nobody reported it to the DWP as far as we are aware. And that’s the other strange thing, no renewal form was sent out first, just called straight in to a face to face assessment.

     
efloyd
forum member

Financial & Social Inclusion Officer, Isos Housing,Newcastle

Send message

Total Posts: 136

Joined: 16 June 2010

Have you queried why?

     
Billy Durrant
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 785

Joined: 22 July 2013

Waiting for a call back in the next 5 days/months/years/never…

     
John Birks
forum member

Welfare Rights and Debt Advice, Stockport Council

Send message

Total Posts: 830

Joined: 16 June 2010

Billy Durrant - 08 August 2017 03:18 PM

Client was awarded ERDL/ERM in 2016 with a Planned Intervention date of Sept 2021. Has now been called in for reassessment 4 years earlier than envisaged. No major changes to his health other than a brief admission to a psychiatric unit last month (mental health was a major reason for his award). No ESA assessments or changes of circs or permitted work or anything else that may have triggered it.

Whilst I understand that the DWP can reassess him any time it likes I am pretty suspicious about why it has chosen to do it 4 years early. Has anyone else had anything similar and did you get to the bottom of why it came about?

I’ve seen this where the DM makes an award in excess of the HCP’s recommendation of a review period.

- e.g. the SSWP made an award of the ERDL for the period 17th September 2013 – 7th September 2017 but the HCP report says review in 3yrs.

There is likely to be a reminder in place to start the reassessment procedure.

**I think**Regardless of the above the SSWP is getting it wrong on renewing, redetermination of awards whether early or not. I believe it’s incumbent upon the SSWP to identify a relevant CoC rather than just using a new ‘opinion’ as the basis to supersede an existing award

The UT has said this.

IMO in using reg11 the SSWP is essentially on nothing more than a fishing trip. It depends what’s on the form - usefully the form now gives options of harder,same, less which on completing may indicate how the claimant feels. Whether this is a material fact or CoC is dependent upon the evidence.

Is there a requirement for the claimant to complete the form and/or go to the medical?

I’d say yes: 80(6) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 specifies “negative determination” as being able to be made ‘if a person fails without a good reason to comply with a requirement to participate in a consultation, with a person approved by the Secretary of State at a place, date and time determined under the regulations. (Reg 11.)

However, the requirement is still there to identify the Change of Circumstances (or mistake as to fact etc) rather than a Change of Heart.

see
5. Revision on any grounds
9. Official error, mistake etc.
23. Changes of circumstances
26. Medical evidence and limited capability for work etc.
33. Procedure for making an application for a supersession
Sch 1Pt2

The Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013

S8(2)(b) Social Security Act 1998

Could the challenge of meeting the required legislation spread over numerous acts and regulations (below) plus the amendments be a little too much for the SSWP?

Social Security Act 1998, Welfare Reform Act 2012, The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 and The Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013.

 

     
ClairemHodgson
forum member

SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 640

Joined: 13 April 2016

John Birks - 10 August 2017 11:25 AM

Could the challenge of meeting the required legislation spread over numerous acts and regulations (below) plus the amendments be a little too much for the SSWP?

 

Probably.

TBH, it’s all so unwieldy it probably needs a consolidating statute.

and frankly, expecting ordinary people to find their way round such a multiplicity of legislation of all kinds without help is just mad.