Level of medical & legal expertise expected by DWP of claimants!

I think a complaint to DWP is in order.  On one reading, there is an implication here that his epilepsy is fabricated and the rep has colluded with this. 

There are a few DWP staff who really do believe that advisers invent things and get their clients to lie.

I don’t really see an issue here.

TBF if the original claim does not mention problems and these are raised at a later date an administrator would be wrong to not address the issue of changing the grounds of the claim.

The new grounds of claim can easily be addressed by the representative/adviser as can the reasons for not putting them on the claim form.

I don’t see any value in complaining to the DWP on the described observation. If the language is stronger in making an accusation of collusion then, maybe? 

Time would be better spent in preparation for the tribunal to raise the issue - or not.

John Birks - 08 January 2018 08:04 AM

I don’t really see an issue here.

TBF if the original claim does not mention problems and these are raised at a later date an administrator would be wrong to not address the issue of changing the grounds of the claim.

The new grounds of claim can easily be addressed by the representative/adviser as can the reasons for not putting them on the claim form.

I don’t see any value in complaining to the DWP on the described observation. If the language is stronger in making an accusation of collusion then, maybe? 

Time would be better spent in preparation for the tribunal to raise the issue - or not.

Sorry I disagree with you.  If the DWP appeal writer had any other evidence that cast doubt on the credibility of the epilepsy, then they would be right to raise it. 

As it stands, as described, an adviser has taken instructions and further evidence has been put forward.  Legal advosers, not just in welfare rights, do this all the time; it’s one of the tasks required of an advocate and lay clients frequently fail to mention key facts until an adviser has assessed their case and got the full picture.  It does not mean that the facts raised later are either incredible or should be given less weight and so not challenging the comment by the DWP in this case tacitly reinforces the culture of disbelief which is too widespread among many DWP staff.

And I’m not suggesting one does not prepare for the appeal.

I think it depends what was said about the effects of epilepsy at those earlier stages.

If it was completely played down in a way that wouldn’t need any supervision then it’s fair for the DM to look to draw an inference about this.

But if, as I think seems likely from the terms of the post here, the effects of the epilepsy were described but not the needs that arise, it’s wrong to try to sue this. The PIP2 is pretty vague in this respect for a start. The definition of supervision and safety are generous enough that a claimant who isn’t getting any may well statutorily need it. It’s supposed to be the HCP and DM’s job to determine this for the claimant.

neilbateman - 08 January 2018 08:46 AM

John Birks - 08 January 2018 08:04 AM

I don’t really see an issue here.

TBF if the original claim does not mention problems and these are raised at a later date an administrator would be wrong to not address the issue of changing the grounds of the claim.

The new grounds of claim can easily be addressed by the representative/adviser as can the reasons for not putting them on the claim form.

I don’t see any value in complaining to the DWP on the described observation. If the language is stronger in making an accusation of collusion then, maybe? 

Time would be better spent in preparation for the tribunal to raise the issue - or not.

Sorry I disagree with you.  If the DWP appeal writer had any other evidence that cast doubt on the credibility of the epilepsy, then they would be right to raise it. 

As it stands, as described, an adviser has taken instructions and further evidence has been put forward.  Legal advosers, not just in welfare rights, do this all the time; it’s one of the tasks required of an advocate and lay clients frequently fail to mention key facts until an adviser has assessed their case and got the full picture.  It does not mean that the facts raised later are either incredible or should be given less weight and so not challenging the comment by the DWP in this case tacitly reinforces the culture of disbelief which is too widespread among many DWP staff.

And I’m not suggesting one does not prepare for the appeal.

I think the claim form is still quite important in terms of claiming - however, said claim form does not begin or end the claim in terms of decision making but is the start of the process and the foundation of the claim of which the rest is built.

Further grounds can be added, grounds can be altered or dropped but unless plainly obvious, would need an explanation which fits the circumstances.

As it is the following statement is attributed to the DWP;

“... did not mention his epilepsy in terms of supervision, or restrictions on 3 separate occasions, until the appeal request of (date) and only then, was this highlighted by a third party representative.” (sic)

Therefore the question would be why was the epilepsy not mentioned as a problem?

There are likely many answers to this - I don’t presume to know the correct answer in this case but I would expect to be asked the question and therefore would expect to have the answer ready.