Can a Tribunal decsion cause an overpayment

I think I probably know the answer to this but I would be grateful for any experiences/caselaw.

I have a client whose DLA care component was revised in March 2010- he went to appeal and was warned by the Tribunal that they were considering the Mobility component as well. They, very properly, adjourned for him to seek advice (which is where I came in)

If he decides to go ahead and a fresh tribunal removes the award of HR Mob (and, judging from the medical evidence recently obtained in relation to another matter, there is no reason to think they won’t or would not be justified in doing so) would that automatically mean he was overpaid from the Date of Decision onwards - this seems to make sense to me;  if the Tribunal can only consider matters down to the date of decision then it must follow that any removal of the award must also stem from the circumstances at the date of decision and therefore the removal of an award must generate an overpayment.

If the DWP then tried to recover the money we would be in the usual s.71 arguments over recovery about who notified whom and when but given the circumstances I doubt we could argue that there was no overpayment if a Tribunal had already ruled that his mobility was to good to qualify

Any thoughts or comments gratefully recieved!

Thats what I was thinking. Unfortunately the award has already run out and the renewal has also been refused so there doesn’t seem to be any change to justify an ongoing award of the Mobility Component

The tribunal could only remove an existing award of the mobility component if there exists grounds for review or supersession. If there are grounds then the question arises as to when the revision/supersession takes effect. The relevant regulations are ; Reg 3(5)(c) and 7(2)(c)(ii) Decisions and Appeals Regs for revision and supersession respectively.

These provide a measure of protection for claimants. The wording differs but for supersession a retrospective overpayment will only arise where “....the claimant….failed to notify an appropriate office of a change of circumstances which regulations under the Administration Act required him to notify, and the claimant…,knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that the change of circumstances should have been notified.”

This might involve consideration of what the claimant had been advised required disclosure when the mobility component was awarded and exploration of what the claimant knew of the basis of the award.