Is an indefinite award of DLA really indefinite?

wottonby

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

A seven year old report wouldn't even be used by the DWP to justify a decision, there is absolutely no reason why you could not apply for DLA again.

So why then was a copy of it included in the pack that went to the Tribunal in support of the ESA appeal I lodged in 2010? Why then on the submission was it said by the DWP, that they HAD used it when deciding my entitlement to ESA? By the way it never reached the Tribunal, it was changed a few weeks beforehand.

What you do have to remember is that I am claiming ESA based on the same mental health conditions that I have had for years, the same conditions that in 2004, I signed the BI118 that I didn't have ANY mental health issues (but I didn't realise that as I signed it without reading the report)and the same condition that allowed me HRC/LRM previously, but were removed shortly afterwards.

So why was it stated on the letter I received from DWP(DLA) when they refused my application, that they had used it as evidence to show that I had no longer any care needs or mobility issues?

And why, when I asked for copies of my files from the DWP, was the report in the current files that they sent me copies of?

And finally, why would the DWP tell me that to re-apply for both DLA & IIDB at any time over the last 7 years would it be a waste of time?

Are you trying to tell me that they CAN'T use that report any more?
And are you saying that they shouldn't have used it for the ESA and DLA claims?

If so, under what law can I claim that they shouldn't even consider the contents of it?
Because if you are right and THEY are wrong, someone owes me over £50,000 in benefit entitlement!

Cpt.Scarlet

First, the fact you signed a medical report is meaningless, To be able to acknowledge the report as accurate you would have to be competent (as in a doctor), to understand the content. If the report was based on your mental competency, then there is no way that it would be upholdable.

The DWP have regularly told claimants not to appeal, it was standard policy up to about a year ago for them to contact claimants looking to appeal and suggesting that they should not as their case had already been looked and they wouldn't win.

Any new claim has to take into account your condition now, not 7 years ago, Most people struggle to get evidence more than 12 months old considered, so the likllihood of a 7 year old report holding sway is virtually nil.

Unfortunately the DWP do not owe you £50,000 because you can't backdate any of your claims to cover the period

wottonby

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

First, the fact you signed a medical report is meaningless, To be able to acknowledge the report as accurate you would have to be competent (as in a doctor), to understand the content. If the report was based on your mental competency, then there is no way that it would be upholdable.

I appreciate your comments. So if I accept what you say is correct, then they had no right in using that document to re-assess my entitlement to IIDB. But they did! So how can I have that report ruled as inadmissible both for the 2004 decisions on IIDB and DLA? Yes both claims were based purely on my mental ability and competency - with the IIDB being based on a change in function - 'lack of mental competency'.

The DWP have regularly told claimants not to appeal, it was standard policy up to about a year ago for them to contact claimants looking to appeal and suggesting that they should not as their case had already been looked and they wouldn't win.

I wouldn't know about that. All I know that on at least five occasions between 2004 and 2009 I was told that there would be no point in submitting any new claims for IIDB or DLA as they would fail as they would be based on the 2004 report that I told them about. Hence why no appeals were lodged against the IIDB & DLA refusals in 2004 and no further claims were made since.

Any new claim has to take into account your condition now, not 7 years ago, Most people struggle to get evidence more than 12 months old considered, so the likllihood of a 7 year old report holding sway is virtually nil.

My needs and condition are no different today than they were in 1999 when I was first given IIDB & DLA, nor were they any different in 2002 when both awards were reviewed, nor were they any different in 2004 when both awards were cancelled.
With what I was told, and that they are no different (not worse or better), I was led to believe by the DWP that the same decision would be made time and time again - fail, if I made repeated claims.

Unfortunately the DWP do not owe you £50,000 because you can't backdate any of your claims to cover the period

But if what you say is correct in that the report was inadmissible, then the awards will have stood as they were before the review in 2004.
I shouldn't have to backdate the claims as nothing about my needs or condition has changed since when I received 80% IIDB & HRC/LRM - DLA!

All of this seems to hinge on whether that 2004 report was admissible as evidence to refuse both claims.
How do I go about proving that?

Cpt.Scarlet

You are confusing the signature on the report and its contents!

Whether you signed the report or not is irrelevant, if a panel found the contents of the report pursuasive, then that would be reason to dis-allow your claim.

The only circumstances in whcih the report would still be valid would be if your condition was such that to be suffering from it now you would have to have been suffering from it 7 years ago.

What treatment have you had since then? Do you have more recent evidence to support a claim? You are claiming ESA, are you on the full rate, what did you use for that?

wottonby

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

You are confusing the signature on the report and its contents!

I don't follow. My signature was put on that form at the request of ATOS/DWP to signify that I agreed with its contents.

Whether you signed the report or not is irrelevant, if a panel found the contents of the report pursuasive, then that would be reason to dis-allow your claim.

The only circumstances in whcih the report would still be valid would be if your condition was such that to be suffering from it now you would have to have been suffering from it 7 years ago.

I have already stated that in a previous post. Yes the same condition, the same needs as in 1999, 2004 and today! No change.
So are you now saying that it is correct that they can use the 2004 report when deciding any claim for IIDB or DLA submitted now?

What treatment have you had since then? Do you have more recent evidence to support a claim? You are claiming ESA, are you on the full rate, what did you use for that?

All of this is confusing. In your earlier post you said that it can't be used. Which is it? I really need to know as I need to find out if I make a new claim for IIDB & DLA that they won't throw the 2004 report at me for obvious reasons. Otherwise the DWP were correct in what they have been telling me that to make any new claims is a waste of time.

Treatment - drugs, and working with the mental health team from 1999 to date.
No not really, A diagnosis was made in 1999 which still stands firm today. Nothing has ever changed from 1999 to now.
What other evidence can there be? I have a long term/lifetime condition that will not improve. All of that evidence was submitted to the DWP in 1999, copied again in 2002 and copied again in 2004.

Yes in the support group. I sent in the ESA50 in 2010 and the same evidence for the same diagnosis but up dated.
They initially refused the claim and failed me, and when I received the appeal pack, what did I find in it? A copy of the 2004 report!!!
Eventually with some argument they conceded. I don't know on what or how many points, except that they put me in the support group.