PIP Mob High court ruling a way forward

RJOfficer

Hello all,

I currently work for a charity and support adults with benefit claims amongst other things.
Following the High Court ruling which (in theory at least) says that those who suffer from psychological distress should now qualify for standard or enhanced mobility where it was denied before I decided to try and bypass the DWPs idea to review all 1.6m cases and write in to request a review/supersession and laid out the grounds for the appeal.

The DWP wrote back within a couple of weeks to say and i quote

'as you are aware we are reviewing cases and some claimants PIP will be affected by these changes in the law. If your entitlement is affected by these changes we will contact you in due course. You dont have to do anything'

So in effect they have ignored my request for revision/supersession (which ever is appropriate to change the decision from Nov 16) and referred back to their original statement that they would look at claims and contact etc

I am sure there are many cynics that question how exactly they will identify the affected and question just how long it will take.... So it is extremely frustrating to have such a response and have the claim thrown back in the 'pile'...

Does anyone have any knowledge around the rules and regs in terms of the DWP replying to supersession/revision requests? (time scales etc)

I dont particularly trust their ability to identify the claims affected yet they wont accept a direct request to re look at a claim following the ruling... Could leave claimants open to be unlawfully overlooked yet again.

Thanks in advance for any responses, opinions or otherwise.

RJOfficer

Perhaps and I could agree with that somewhat, they did in fact reply.

The logic I was attempting was that if claimants came forward and identified themselves, it would in theory reduce the workload/timescales/costs. For example if this revision took place upon request, then when their 'turn in the queue' happened the caseworker would see it as dealt with and move straight on to the next.

Also the case workers they already employ would have the knowledge/skills to deal with the request I submitted for my client effectively. I see no reason to not action the request.

My intention as it stands is to query the lack of action to my request to the DWP further in the hope that I might be able to support individuals in similar situations. There may be a queue, but I wouldnt like to think of an eligible individual finding themselves at the back of a queue of 1.6m most of which are not eligible for review. That part at least isnt fair in my opinion and eligible claimants shouldnt suffer the system any further.

[Deleted User]

isn't there a risk that if you ask for a revision/supercession that you risk losing some of the award?

BorisThomson

RJOfficer wrote: »

Perhaps and I could agree with that somewhat, they did in fact reply.

The logic I was attempting was that if claimants came forward and identified themselves, it would in theory reduce the workload/timescales/costs. For example if this revision took place upon request, then when their 'turn in the queue' happened the caseworker would see it as dealt with and move straight on to the next.

Also the case workers they already employ would have the knowledge/skills to deal with the request I submitted for my client effectively. I see no reason to not action the request.

My intention as it stands is to query the lack of action to my request to the DWP further in the hope that I might be able to support individuals in similar situations. There may be a queue, but I wouldnt like to think of an eligible individual finding themselves at the back of a queue of 1.6m most of which are not eligible for review. That part at least isnt fair in my opinion and eligible claimants shouldnt suffer the system any further.

Why do you say that most of the 1.6 million are not eligible for revised award, are you basing that on facts or is it your opinion?

It comes across to me also that you are trying to jump the queue. You also risk your client missing out on any back payment, as a supersession would be based on a recent change in condition and only paid from when their application for review was submitted.

I'm surprised you are not posting on rightsnet if you are acting in a professional capacity.

([STRIKE]And I might be sensing an andy post.[/STRIKE])

RJOfficer

Aparant stats are saying claiming approx 220,000 decisions could be affected by the court ruling so im basing it on that not on opinion. As stated earlier i asked for revision/supersession which ever was appropriate for a backpayment in line with the court ruling.

Also as said in an earlier post I am here looking for support and information.... not criticism and to be called Andy(?). I dont even know what that is suppose to mean. Is this forum not here to support those looking for advice?

[Deleted User]

IMHO you would best serve your clients by advising them to wait their turn.