Tribunal won, but not payed all the money owed back?

donny909

The partner won her tribunal against ATOS earlyer this month and her IS has now been put back to what it was prior to the "failed" (and I use that word very loosly) medical.

But for some reason they have only payed a little under half of what is owed back. Well they payed from mid sep 09 (when the medical was "failed") to early jan 10. When it should have been back payed till mid may.

The partner made a quick call late friday afternoon just before they closed to be told that's all that they were obliged to pay back!. Is this right as I'd assume they have to pay upto not only the date the tribunal was won but upto the date at which they adjust the partners IS by the amount the IS was reduced?.

tcr_3

Any arrears normally go back to the week in which Income Support was reduced to the appeal rate. But you're so vague on the detail, who knows ?

How much was she getting before September ? What was paid while the appeal was ongoing ? And what have they put it back up to now ? Is it only Income Support she qualifies for or did she have Incapacity Benefit with an Income Support top up ? Any other benefits or income being paid ?

donny909

In all honesty there are other benefits etc but that's a long issue which I dealt with in another thread relating to something else but loosly related to this and that side of things was solved in that thread.

The money has gone up by about £16 per week (which was also what was worked out to be in the other thread, but this is really a seperate issue I feel) and is correct as we have it in writing. Also in writing is that they have payed a backdated payment from the 15th sep 09 upto the 4th of jan 10.

The tribunal was won on the 8th of may 10. but there is no mention of why there is no back dated payments going upto the 8th of may at least. The partner was told thats all they have to pay. There has been no changes in circumstances or benefit entitlement during the ruduced payments period (she received IS at a reduced rate untill she won the tribunal). Futher more what we are told we now receive is a little over what it was (april increase I guess?) prior to the reduction due to failed medical. It's simply they they are trying to say she is only entitled to have the backedted payments payed upto 4th jan 10 when it aught to be at least 8th of may 10.

Indie_Kid

But she was on the reduced rate from January.

dmg24

You are not making a lot of sense. Why not give us the figures for what she has received, and we'll check if she has received the correct amount?