Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Challenging date of PIP award following MR
We’ve got a client who had their PIP claim refused. The claim was made in November 2021 and they asked for MR of the decision which led to PIP award being made. However, DWP have said the award can only be made from March 2022 when they made decision on MR.
We believe this is clearly nonsense as reg.21 of the D&A Regs is pretty clear that it’s the original decision date that is the effective date for the revised decision.
As such, we’re going to advise the client to lodge another MR about this second decision - my question is whether this poses any risk to the award that has been made?
I’m of the opinion this shouldn’t be an issue as the question of entitlement isn’t relevant to what’s at stake on the second MR but lacking any direct recent experience of representing at tribunals, just wanted to check what others thought here. Thoughts gratefully received as always.
Did your client really make a PIP claim in November 2021 and get to the point of having an MRN by March 2022? That is record speed surely.
At any rate, the decision maker’s job at first instance is to decide the case on the facts down to the decision date (i.e. the original decision on the claim). An application for revision is basically just asking for a do-over on that decision making process. The important date is still the original decision date - the DM considering the MR request ought to make the decision as it should have been on that date. They can’t consider circumstances occurring after that date.
The date on which the MR happens to occur isn’t really relevant to anything except appeal time limits.
In the course of things, a PIP claim would result in an award from the date of the claim. The exceptions would be (1) if it is appropriate for an advance award to be made - for example if the claimant didn’t meet the required period yet or (2) if it is a DLA transfer.
I don’t see any reason to put in a new MR about the MR. I would just put in an appeal. The effective date of the decision is still part of the decision and capable of appeal.
It is never possible to exclude the possibility that the DWP might reduce the award but if you limit your grounds of appeal to “the effective date of decision has been calculated incorrectly” then it is hard to see why the DM would re-open entitlement of their own initiative.
What he said. This nonsense comes up from time to time and you have to wonder how that can be. It is just so basic. Rest assured Paul that we all begin to doubt ourselves on stuff like this such is the conviction with which DWP exercise themselves on these matters.
Thanks both. Must admit, after posting and rereading the original enquiry, I thought about the option of going straight to appeal myself.
If I can be allowed to piggy back on this.
Got a decision from Social Security Scotland today on the Child Disaibility Payment. Following a redetermination request of a negative initial decision, SSS have made an award, but only from the date of their re-determination.
The decision making and appeals rules that apply to CDP don’t have anything explicit to prevent changes in circumstances after a decision is made being taken into account when considering a challenge to that decision. There was no change in circs in this instance, will be interesting (and worrying) if this is how they are going to do things.
I am in no way qualified to comment on matters north of the border, but it seems to me that the position would be that the start date of a Child Disability Payment in those circumstances would be determined by reg 24(3) Disability Assistance for Children and Young People (Scotland) Regulations 2021 - i.e. that the award would take effect from the date of claim unless it was to be dealt with as an advance award in line with reg 24(2) or the claimant was entitled to backdating to the point that the claim was intimated under reg 24(4)-(6). That seems to me to hold true whether the decision is made on the initial “determination”, on “re-determination” or on determination by the Tribunal.
In a you couldn’t make this nonsense up, we’ve also received an enquiry about an AA claim.
Initial decision is refusal, client submits late MR. DWP decide client actually entitled to low rate AA BUT they say the award only starts from date that late MR was received, not from the date of claim.
Do they all get together to do this kind of nonsense for a bet or something? It’s like being gaslighted by DWP decision makers.
Do they all get together to do this kind of nonsense for a bet or something? It’s like being gaslighted by DWP decision makers.
That is exactly how it feels. Almost hallucinatory. The impact on claimants in already fragile circumstances is seriously concerning.
I personally would bother to ask for another MR, just go straight to appeal because the duration of the award is a determintion embodied in an appealable decision( SC v SSWP (PIP) [2019] UKUT 165 (AAC)))
A Tribunal need not consider any issue not raised by the appeal and if it is minded to consider making a less favouble decision it must warn the appellant who would then be free to withdraw the appeal leaving the award intact (CDLA/4184/2004, R(IB)2/04 at[94])
You only need one MR before you can go to appeal and appealing could result in someone seeing sense and lasping the appeal