PIP2 deadline extensions being refused

Hi all,

One of our caseworkers have reported that PIP have refused to grant extensions on sending PIP2 forms on two seperate occassions in the last week for their client(s) and the telephony adviser has stated that PIP no longer grant deadline extensions on forms.

I haven’t seen any updates from DWP about refusing PIP2 2 week extensions recently, so may have missed this, so just wanted to check if this is correct and extensions are no longer possible?

Kind Regards,

csmk

My client has just received a (second) extension today. I suspect that you are probably dealing with an overenthusiatic local manager who has just invented a new policy on the hoof and will be told to get back in his/her box when someone higher up finds out about it.

We were advised that the PIP line went down earlier this week. It could also just be that parts of their system allowing this may not yet be back online.

Brilliant thank you very much Mike and BC, thought this was a bit strange! Sorry for the late reply!

Just to further reassure you, one of my clients has just successfully sought an extension with no difficulty whatsoever.

The usual call centre crack.

Define: “call centre crack”

The addiction to saying “something” in order to sound authoritative when you don’t know the actual answer or process. Usually, but not always, new staff.

Not quite the same thing but I had a client who was sent a PIP2 (supposedly for a renewal) but with a letter setting a deadline for its return.  That deadline was two and a half months before the end date of the award.  They extended the deadline although the new deadline was still before the award was due to end

She previously had an award of both comonents at the standard rate and was hoping to get the enhanced rate of the mobility component on renewal

The award was refused on renewal but the daily living component was reinstated on MR.  The client appealed

The DWP submission was that the mobility component could be restored but only at the standard rate because my client had reached pension age at the time of the decision.  (They did not lapse the appeal)

My argument was that by setting a deadline before the end of the award the DWP had effectively started action leading to supersession, and the date of the start of action was the default date for the effective date of the superseding decision

The DWP said that they were merely inviting a renewal claim when they sent the PIP2 and the letter.  The presenting officer who attended the hearing continued with that line and even accused me of being confused about the difference between a claim and an award (the letter accompanying the PIP2 stated that “we will end your claim” if the PIP2 was not returned before the deadline)  The PO stated that the letter was sent out by the computer and its contents may not have been intended

The Tribunal Judge suggested that the appeal could be disposed of if we accepted the presenting officers offer to restore the previous award and said he preferred the presenting officers submission over mine.  I told the Judge that I may want to make further submissions , particularly regarding the 1998 Social Security Act and the use of comuters

The case was eventually adjourned with directions for further submissions.  I prepared detailed submission as promised but it crossed in the post with the DWP’s own futher submission which confirmed what I had said all along that the letter and the PIP2 was the start of an action for supersession and that it was consequently possible to award the enhanced mobility component