Can the two components of PIP be awarded for different periods so long as the latter component is payable for a period no more than 3 months ahead of the decision?
I can’t see an equivalent provision to S71(3) SSCBA ‘92 in the WRA 2012 (two DLA components can’t be awarded for different fixed periods)
I have a case where the DL conditions were met at the date of decision but there was a serious deterioration between the assessment and the decision such that if we were to apply the advance claim provisions then the mobility provisions would be met within 3 months of the decision. edit; it’s not a claim it’s a supersession…
. Nulla Poena Sine Lege anyone?
Could a decision be made that awarded DL from the date of decision and mob from 2 months and two weeks hence?
It might be important to say that this is a supersession of a previous award.
I’ve tied myself in knots over this so I thought I’d throw it to the floor.[ Edited: 9 May 2018 at 03:20 pm by Dan Manville ]
I don’t see why not.
I had occasion to look at s. 88 of the WRA 2012 yesterday (this because post tribunal, DWP has applied for a ‘correction’ of a decision awarding my client PIP to 2021 because her LTR expires in September - a district judge is proposing to set aside under reg. 37 - do not get me started!!). Anyway…...
s. 88 is about the length of an award. The default position is that an award will be for a fixed period, but can be indefinite if the decision maker considers this appropriate. Any decision to make an indefinite award must have regard to the guidance issued by the SoS. The section itself doesn’t tell us much. In RS v SSWP  UKUT 85 (AAC) it became apparent that no guidance had been issued - but Judge Mitchell also made it clear that s.88 and the length of the award is entirely about prognosis and the likely duration of the claimant’s needs.
That being so, and given that an ‘award’ can be an award of either component or both, what I read from the section and RS is that there will be circumstances where it would be ‘appropriate’ for there to be, say, an indefinite award of the mobility component and a fixed term award of the daily living component. all that is required for that is that it is ‘appropriate’. And if that type of award is permissible, surely an award of two components of different fixed terms is permissible? I certainly cannot see anything in the legislation that prohibits it….
I agree that there seems to be nothing stopping the DM from making awards of both components which don’t precisely line up with one another and in some cases it might be appropriate to do so (e.g. if a claimant suffered an injury during the claiming process which impacted one component but not the other).
But is that even a factor in this case? What’s to stop the DM saying “I am deciding that as at today Mr A is entitled to SRDL, but I’m superseding my own decision with effect from [2 months from now] on the basis of an anticipated CoC under Reg 23 D&A in that Mr A will then qualify for SRDL/ERM”?[ Edited: 30 Apr 2018 at 02:47 pm by Elliot Kent ]
Saw this earlier and had half composed a response. However, Elliot has pretty much nailed my response word for word except that I was going to add that this is the sort of thing that needs publicising as advisers often tie themselves in knots in cases where for example the person had a number of ongoing health issues but then has a stroke.