Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Supersession or anytime revision for official error
Just picked up this case today a the appeal stage, Tribunal date less than a month away.
Client was awarded PIP SDL late 2020. Not awarded EMOB - planning and following journeys. Appeal papers indicate client contacted the dept 11 months ish later. Nothing within the papers as to the nature of that contact i.e. what client said to PIP enquiry line i.e. whether she said she not happy with the original decision or said there had been a change of circs. A DM treated that ‘contact’ as a ‘relevant change of circumstances’. As opposed to a late MR.
Looking at the original claim (pack), the HP’s findings on planning and following journeys and findings and reasoning on engaging face to face when that decision was made. Arguably make a persuasive case for 1f or in the alternative 1d. Similarly 9c i.e. EDL.
The subsequent supersession awarded EDL. But rejected the argument that client met the criteria for the mobility component - planning and following journeys on the basis that there had not been a relevant change of circs since the original award. Which appears to be the case i.e. reg 23 UC (D&A) regs 2013. Arguably, an error of law applies i.e. reg 24.
I am wondering about reg 9 official error back to the original decision - https://askcpag.org.uk/content/208117/official-errors-in-benefits-decisions
Any thoughts really appreciated
You’ll need to ask your client what she said on the phonecall.
You might argue that the request ought to have been taken as a revision request and therefore try to re-cast the appeal as being against the first decision.
If that is what you are going to argue, then there is no need to limit yourself to official error grounds, since your client was still within the absolute time limit for an ‘any grounds’ revision request.
Otherwise if the tribunal deals with the appeal as being against the superseding decision, you could, independently of the appeal, seek any time revision of the original decision on official error grounds.
You’ll need to ask your client what she said on the phonecall.
Though in addition, is there a second PIP2/supersession form in the appeal bundle - i.e. one clearly sent out in response to the client’s phone call? Because it would be a rare thing indeed for DWP to agree to carry out a supersession without insisting on a new form being completed. If there’s no form, I’d argue that is strongly indicative of the client having requested a revision…..
You’ll need to ask your client what she said on the phonecall.
Though in addition, is there a second PIP2/supersession form in the appeal bundle - i.e. one clearly sent out in response to the client’s phone call? Because it would be a rare thing indeed for DWP to agree to carry out a supersession without insisting on a new form being completed. If there’s no form, I’d argue that is strongly indicative of the client having requested a revision…..
As per usual massive thanks Elliot and Simon. Really appreciated.
1. ‘You’ll need to ask your client what she said on the phone call’. I did and although her recollections are hazy, there was enough from her to suggest it needed further following up. So with her agreement we have requested a postponement and directions for the Secretary of State to produce electronic, paper, and telephony records of that contact **/**/2021. To try to ascertain whether that contact amounted to a MR or supersession application.
2. Yes there is a AR1 UI form in the appeal bundle that was sent out.