DLA renewal for 16 year old - 3 month qualifying period prior to 16th birthday - case law needed

I have a vague recollection of a commissioner’s decision that addressed how decision makers should apply the law regarding the backward 3 month qualifying period for claims renewed on a 16th birthday (i.e. whether the child DLA conditions apply for those 3 months). I would be grateful if anyone has this decision or could provide a reference for it. cheers.

I am not sure you need a Commissioner’s decision here. The statute law is absolutely plain:

1. the additional rules for children under 16 take the form of modifications (set out in sec 72(1A)) to the general conditions of entitlement in sec 72(1)(a) to (c) for care component.

2. However sec 72(2A) makes it completely clear that those modifications have no effect on section 72(2) (the backwards qualifying rule) except for the period within the three months backwards period where the claimant is under 16.

I think CDAL/4228/2003 might help but in reading that you need to keep very much in mind the fact that para (1A) and (2A) were inserted after that decision and the sec 72(6) to which it refers was revoked.

Thanks - that was the decision I had in mind but wasn’t sure how helpful it was.

The purpose of the post was for a colleague who received a statement of reasons framed entirely from the point of view of the additional rules for children under sec 72(1A). This despite the effective renewal date being the 16th birthday (don’t know date of decision in this case). There is no mention at all in the reasons of applying the adult rules for the forward 6 months qualifying period from that birthday. A straightforward set aside was expected because the correct law wasn’t applied but this has been refused and a direct application to the UT is being planned.