Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Continueing woth a PIP hearing after a DWP offer
Hi there, just wanted to run something by the good folk here:
Did I dream a scandal whereby the DWP were calling people before a PIP hearing date with an inappropriate offer then saying they could not both take the offer and still go to appeal, when that it is in fact incorrect and immoral?
I have a client that was awarded Standard rate daily living, no mobility. Went through MR and appeal stage, had a phone call when waiting for the date, was offered standard rate mobility and was told that if he still went to appeal he could not have that. He declined and went on with the appeal with the date being in January for it. It explicitly states in his appeal bundle that this is what happened and no mobility component can be awarded at this time. I genuinely though that this was wrong and shouldn’t be happening but they aren’t hiding it.
Apologies if I have misunderstood the rules around this.
Thank you for any help/advice inn advance!
Hi there, just wanted to run something by the good folk here:
Did I dream a scandal whereby the DWP were calling people before a PIP hearing date with an inappropriate offer then saying they could not both take the offer and still go to appeal, when that it is in fact incorrect and immoral?
I have a client that was awarded Standard rate daily living, no mobility. Went through MR and appeal stage, had a phone call when waiting for the date, was offered standard rate mobility and was told that if he still went to appeal he could not have that. He declined and went on with the appeal with the date being in January for it. It explicitly states in his appeal bundle that this is what happened and no mobility component can be awarded at this time. I genuinely though that this was wrong and shouldn’t be happening but they aren’t hiding it.
Apologies if I have misunderstood the rules around this.
Thank you for any help/advice inn advance!
The implication was that if you failed to accept the offer you might lose everything at appeal. Technically a possibility but DWP were hardly qualified to make such an assertion.
On the back of much slightly misleading/incomplete national publicity on this, new guidance was issued which made clear that such conversations must not take place in that format and must only take place with a rep. where one is in place. That guidance has largely been followed by DWP gradually winding down the number of offers since then (in my view/experience) but there are still occasional and obvious breaches.
I wonder if something else is being said in your case. Might MC simply be unwinnable because client now over pensionable age or one of the several reasons that might occur?
Hi there, just wanted to run something by the good folk here:
Did I dream a scandal whereby the DWP were calling people before a PIP hearing date with an inappropriate offer then saying they could not both take the offer and still go to appeal, when that it is in fact incorrect and immoral?
I have a client that was awarded Standard rate daily living, no mobility. Went through MR and appeal stage, had a phone call when waiting for the date, was offered standard rate mobility and was told that if he still went to appeal he could not have that. He declined and went on with the appeal with the date being in January for it. It explicitly states in his appeal bundle that this is what happened and no mobility component can be awarded at this time. I genuinely though that this was wrong and shouldn’t be happening but they aren’t hiding it.
Apologies if I have misunderstood the rules around this.
Thank you for any help/advice inn advance!
The implication was that if you failed to accept the offer you might lose everything at appeal. Technically a possibility but DWP were hardly qualified to make such an assertion.
On the back of much slightly misleading/incomplete national publicity on this, new guidance was issued which made clear that such conversations must not take place in that format and must only take place with a rep. where one is in place. That guidance has largely been followed by DWP gradually winding down the number of offers since then (in my view/experience) but there are still occasional and obvious breaches.
I wonder if something else is being said in your case. Might MC simply be unwinnable because client now over pensionable age or one of the several reasons that might occur?
Thank you for responding. I can’t think of a reason why it was offered then essentially retracted - he’s well under pension age and just appears like a bog standard PIP appeal. Is it correct that they can make an offer, then refuse to honour that offer if the claimant wants to go to first tier tribunal. If that is the case, it seems like I could still argue that the DWP believed a standard rate award at least was appropriate so “if he can’t have enhanced can he please have standard at least then?” (please ha!)
Thanks again
Claimants have the choice of
- accepting the offer and the appeal then lapses.
- accepting the offer to get something in payment and then lodging a new appeal (which won’t require an MR) to get the rest.
- negotiating the offer with the risk that entails that the offer might be retracted etc.
- declining the offer, in which case the matter ought to proceed with a record in the appeal papers that the offer was made but refused. The offer is made on the basis that DWP believe it’s all the appellant can achieve so if an appellant believes otherwise then DWP will sometimes let the offer stand and sometimes retract.
If DWP make an offer then we need to be clear what the client said. If they refused the offer and indicated a wish to proceed to appeal then it’s the last of the above which ought to apply.
However, I have come across post revised guidance cases where DWP tried to impose entirely artificial deadlines and ignored the fact I was a rep. i.e. ringing an appellant; ignoring the fact there was a a named rep. in their appeal papers and making an offer which will only stay in place for say 3 days or even 24 hrs . Let’s call that what it was. Blackmail. Plain and simple. “Accept this quickly else we’ll force the matter to appeal and you might not get anything”.
Inevitably, as I observed on here in the thread live at the time, these were offers which offered either the right amount or award length but never both.
Now, of course, some kind of deadline is appropriate, especially if a hearing date is in place and of course such things can’t just sit there hanging forever but… how you present such things really matters and it presented as a high pressure selling tactic i.e. blackmail.
In your case it would be interesting to hear more of the specifics as to how this was presented. If your client announced an intent to proceed to appeal then the offer is effectively at an end albeit a matter of record.
Claimants have the choice of
- accepting the offer and the appeal then lapses.
- accepting the offer to get something in payment and then lodging a new appeal (which won’t require an MR) to get the rest.
- negotiating the offer with the risk that entails that the offer might be retracted etc.
- declining the offer, in which case the matter ought to proceed with a record in the appeal papers that the offer was made but refused. The offer is made on the basis that DWP believe it’s all the appellant can achieve so if an appellant believes otherwise then DWP will sometimes let the offer stand and sometimes retract.If DWP make an offer then we need to be clear what the client said. If they refused the offer and indicated a wish to proceed to appeal then it’s the last of the above which ought to apply.
However, I have come across post revised guidance cases where DWP tried to impose entirely artificial deadlines and ignored the fact I was a rep. i.e. ringing an appellant; ignoring the fact there was a a named rep. in their appeal papers and making an offer which will only stay in place for say 3 days or even 24 hrs . Let’s call that what it was. Blackmail. Plain and simple. “Accept this quickly else we’ll force the matter to appeal and you might not get anything”.
Inevitably, as I observed on here in the thread live at the time, these were offers which offered either the right amount or award length but never both.
Now, of course, some kind of deadline is appropriate, especially if a hearing date is in place and of course such things can’t just sit there hanging forever but… how you present such things really matters and it presented as a high pressure selling tactic i.e. blackmail.
In your case it would be interesting to hear more of the specifics as to how this was presented. If your client announced an intent to proceed to appeal then the offer is effectively at an end albeit a matter of record.
I’m guessing that the DWP didn’t make clear that in the phone call that the second option was possible - accepting the offer to get something in payment and then lodging a new appeal. But I was not representative at the time unfortunately and there is a language barrier which doesn’t help. Your explanation makes it very clear, thanks you so much again.
To be fair I’ve listed the appellant choices. DWP would almost certainly never offer the second option despite it being explicitly referenced in the new guidance because
- it would sound like they were inviting an appellant to challenge a decision which they’re on the phone arguing is the best which can be achieved
- I’m not sure they would have been trained to think of it as an option.
Note that “communication difficulties” are explicitly referenced in the new guidance so the caller should have identified the need for interpretation and acted accordingly. Always worth highlighting when you go to appeal as it speaks volumes as to the DWPs actual approach to these matters as opposed to what they sincerely believe they’re doing.
It’s a bit like them presenting a submission about how much they know about my sight loss clients but then forgetting to answer three requests to put their sub. into large print. There’s what you say and what you do.
Worth reading this.