Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
DWP have retracted a PIP mandatory reconsideration award due to lack of medical evidence
Hi there,
My client was awarded nothing for PIP initially, did a MR and received a decision letter awarding them 13 points for the daily living component which they were very happy about.
They then received a phone call from PIP asking for more evidence to support this, after the letter was received, with a deadline. The client was unable to send in evidence due to not being able to get hold of medical professionals on time (and still hasn’t been able to get anything) so their MR decision was then retracted, and they received another letter telling them they wouldn’t be getting any PIP.
They have now lodged their appeal. Has anyone else come across this before, and is there anything else they can do? Except from trying to get evidence and sending this to the appeal service in the hope that DWP send them an ‘offer’ before appealing, or going ahead with the appeal to try and get this overturned?
Thanks
There is no such thing as ‘retracting’ a decision of any kind. It’s complete tosh and probably simply a legal nullity.
A decision which has been revised (e.g. in this instance the decision communicated by the MRN) can be further revised or superseded on grounds. For example, it could be argued that the decision fell to be revised again for official error.
There is also the general “any grounds” revision power under reg 5(1) D&A where “the Secretary of State commences action leading to the revision within one month of the date of notification of the original decision” which might arguably cover your case.
Really it is incumbent on the DWP to explain which of its powers it is actually using rather than just making things up and hoping to blag it.
I think an appeal on the basis that the purported retraction is void and ought to be set aside would be one option. Possibly JR might be another.
(I discussed a case of mine in which a DM tried to ‘retract’ a decision in this thread here: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/14967)
You can have similar at any point.
E.g. claimant did their own claim and MR before I intervened. MR resulted in an improved award which the claimant rightly sought advice on as they believed it remained incorrect. Appeal lodged. DWP review on appeal and remove one of the components awarded on MR. Nothing in the appeal triggered the removal. They simply reverted to choosing to believe a fact stated by the HCP and the earlier DM which had already been disproved in the MR. In this case it was that the claimant could do lots of things like socially engage or read or communicate because they worked. The fact they’d given up employment explicitly because they were actively struggling to do any of those things even after a range of reasonable adjustments were put in place formed a key part of the MR.
DWP produced their usual accusatory, personalised and close to abusive subs when asked to revise once again and especially after a complaint was lodged.
Suffice to say the appeal, as ever, really didn’t take long and produced exactly the outcome I had predicted to DWP from the off.
Hold your nerve.
You can have similar at any point.
E.g. claimant did their own claim and MR before I intervened. MR resulted in an improved award which the claimant rightly sought advice on as they believed it remained incorrect. Appeal lodged. DWP review on appeal and remove one of the components awarded on MR. Nothing in the appeal triggered the removal. They simply reverted to choosing to believe a fact stated by the HCP and the earlier DM which had already been disproved in the MR. In this case it was that the claimant could do lots of things like socially engage or read or communicate because they worked. The fact they’d given up employment explicitly because they were actively struggling to do any of those things even after a range of reasonable adjustments were put in place formed a key part of the MR.
This is at least lawful, because a decision under appeal can always be revised under reg 11(1) D&A.
The situation in the opening post is that the DM simply decided to ‘retract’ a decision they had made which is not a thing.
Thanks very much for your help
Sorry I ought to have been clearer that in part I was drawing the parallel because in my instance DWP also just made stuff up. They were given everything to revise their odd revision and insisted they had no power to do so etc. They claimed that the DM making the MR decision had no power to make certain aspects of it… and so on.