Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Treating MR request as request for supersession
Thinking about how to rescue a situation that has been slightly messed up before getting to me…..
PIP claim refused - 0 points. Request for MR (last year!) made on the basis of client having lost his leg some weeks after negative decision. No new claim made. Client obviously advised to make new claim now.
But assuming an appeal of the original decision succeeds (i.e. entitlement established even without the leg loss) it is as if the original decision were to make an award all along. Can the MR request then be treated as a request for supersession? We’re in time on everything, so I am struggling to see a reason why not…..
So I suppose you are asking if it can be treated as a sort of nested supersession request, with your client asking the DWP to revise their decision and then - if they do revise - to further go on to supersede it from the appropriate date. I think that’s an interesting question and I don’t know that there is a a clear answer.
However, I do think you can deal with this situation without grasping that particular nettle. The effective date of a COC supersession is not set by the date on which supersession is requested, but by the date on which the change is notified to the appropriate office. See reg 23 and Sch 1, Part 2, D&A Regs. Even if your client’s request is incapable of being treated as a request for supersession, it must amount to notifying the appropriate office of the change.
So it seems to me that if you are successful on the MR or subsequent appeal, you can then go on to request a supersession on the basis of a COC with the effective date being either the date of the change or the date that the MR request which notified of the change.
Hi Elliot - cheers. Badly worded, but it was the second route I was actually thinking of - just away from the office and the Law Volumes when I posted, so unable to check whether there might be a flaw in that cunning plan…....
[ Edited: 1 Oct 2019 at 08:25 am by past caring ]Well there you go - I think it can work. The problem is going to be if he can’t establish entitlement pre the loss of his leg!