× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

Another DLA to PIP issue - aged over 65

Oldestrocker
forum member

Principal - Forensic Accountants, Canterbury

Send message

Total Posts: 100

Joined: 26 September 2011

Guy has presented the following to me.

Has had DLA since 1995 (HRM & MRC) with the help of the local authority welfare rights. Has had no reviews since original award.

He completed the PIP2 in January 2017 aged 66 with no help or assistance. He then had a face to face on the 8th May 2017 with ATOS. He received the decision of 8 points for care (based entirely on aids) and 4 points for mobility on the 25th May 2017.
This gave him Standard Care only.

Without taking advice he wrote to the DWP within days (5th June 2017) of receiving the decision notice telling them that he did not intend asking for a MR or making an appeal on the grounds that the whole process confuses him and he does not want to go to court.

This is where I come in and suggested that we apply for a MR by way of a late application. This was done whereupon unsurprisingly the DWP refused the late application.
They cited that the reasons given were that the client clearly was happy with the award given and his letter showed that he knew all about the time limits.

The two questions I pose are does anybody have any idea what argument(s) I could use when requesting that the out of time decision goes to the FTT? Client seems to have completely shot himself in the foot with sending that letter.

And secondly as the current PIP award has no mobility element. Would I be flogging a dead horse to attempt to argue to get the Mobility award back in 2019 on renewal (3 year award 2020 when he will be aged 69)?

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

In answer to the first question, the UT’s decision on late MRs issued last Friday means that you simply lodge an appeal. There is no need to even engage with the question of why the MR was late.

https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/caselaw/item/provided-a-mandatory-reconsideration-request-is-made-within-13-months-of-de

[ Edited: 8 Aug 2017 at 07:30 pm by Elliot Kent ]
Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

What Elliot says and as a result, you can also make arguments about the mobility element now, as that’s the only way I can see that he’s going to retain entitlement in the long run.

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Oldestrocker - 08 August 2017 05:40 PM

Without taking advice he wrote to the DWP within days (5th June 2017) of receiving the decision notice telling them that he did not intend asking for a MR or making an appeal on the grounds that the whole process confuses him and he does not want to go to court.

Client seems to have completely shot himself in the foot with sending that letter.

I haven’t seen the whole letter obviously but from that synopsis I wouldn’t say so. An unrepresented claimant confused and anxious about going to ‘court’ but seemingly unhappy with the decision gets representation, is better informed and feels more able to handle the process is what it sounds like to me…

As Paul says, doesn’t make any sense to not dispute the mobility component now (unless their are solid reasons for not doing so). But if there are, that may cast doubt on the previous DLA mobility award too.