Pension Credit refusing proof of identity

No they are not.  There is no hierarchy of evidence in establishing a person’s identity or in proving any other fact for that matter in order to satisfy entitlement to benefit.  It is a matter of examining all the available evidence, documents and assertions in the round and reaching a decision that is reasonable according to the circumstances.  It would be wrong in law for the DWP to wave just one document in the air against five to the contrary held by the claimant and to assert as a matter of fact that the DWP hold the trump card.  Pieces of evidence are not hurdles that a claimant has to get over but merely factors that the DWP has to apply its mind to in light of all the known facts.  It’s a matter of good sense and proper judgement.  For instance, a scribbled note from my mum saying I live at number 10 High Street just isn’t going to cut it when there are 10 sworn affidavits that someone else lives there.

Is there anything official that I can use to get them to see sense?  I have spoken to new claims (even DWP think they are wrong) but they are refusing to budge…

See Kerr v Department for Social Development (NI) (2004) HL, particularly paras 62-3.  I wouldn’t bet on the Department backing down on this one in light of the forged birth certificate.  Many DM’s wouldn’t know principles of administrative law from their elbows.

If you want them to “see sense”, see if there is something in the DMG they are not following? DMG chapter 10 describes the DWP’s approach to age verification. Eg:

10030 The best evidence of age, marriage or death that can be provided is a certified copy of an entry which has by law to be made in a register concerning the event

Thus a certificate issued by a Registrar of Births is “primary evidence”, and only if doubt is cast on that will they turn to such “secondary evidence” as a passport or certificate of naturalization. But also:

10034 The DM must consider the possibility that information on a statutory certificate may be wrong if there is strong evidence to suggest this.
R(S) 15/52

A discrepancy between the birth certificate and passport/naturalisation certificate would raise two issues.

The first is whether the person is who she claims to be at all - there is a risk of multiple identity fraud and in some other guise she could be claiming other benefits, or married to Eric Clapton, or doing something else that would mean she isn’t entitled to SPC.

However, DWP does not seem to be concerned about that because they have awarded ESA to this version of her and they have visited her at home and found her physically where they expected to find her.  So they seem to be satisfied that there is only one of her and that she does not possess undisclosed income or capital in some other name.

So the only issue is the second one, which is whether she is entitled to working age or pension age benefits and they do seem to be acting in a confused way there.  If they want her to get a new birth certificate that tends to suggest they think there is something wrong with the current one doesnt it?

I wonder if they just havent thought it through and the decision they have made doesn’t follow logically from the concerns they have?

Thank you everyone.  They do not think she is someone else, just that when she first claimed incapacity benefit she provided a birth cert that shows 1952 and not 1948 (no idea why she didn’t notice that it was wrong at the time…) and now the pension service are using the same proof as DWP and citing this as the primary source.