P.I.P Telephone assessment award

born_again

Newcad said:

With a review it's the date that the new decision was made that counts, and any changes of payments apply from that decsion date.

Thanks. 
Crafty.
Over covid & pushed back reviews, saved them a few bob at best 🤣

Newcad

Swings and roundabouts.

You would expect most awards to stay the same at reassessment.

However as far as DWP are concerned they would probably have expected to refuse/reduce more at reassessmets than the ones that would have increased. So from their point of view having to make extensions because of backlogs would have cost them.

poppy12345

Newcad said:

With a review it's the date that the new decision was made that counts, and any changes of payments apply from that decsion date.

(If it was a new claim, or if you had reported a change of circumstances that needed a new assessment, it would be different and those should normally be backdated).

Not always. It's been known so many times due to backlogs for a decision maker to backdate a review (started by DWP) decision to an earlier date. It doesn't happen to every claimant for reviews but it's definitely been known. 

Newcad

I can't say that I've heard of one, but it would be possible if the DM decides that there is 'something' that allows the previous decision to be revised from an earlier date, (such as the earlier notification of a CofC which hadn't been acted on, unfortunately that can be common during the backlogs), rather than simply a supersession of it with a new award from the decision date.
It may also be that new DM guidelines have been put in place because of the current backlogs? I haven't heard of any in particular but you never know if they have had an unpublished policy memo.

For those not familiar with those terms:

A ‘revision’ is where a Decision Maker looks again at an earlier decision to see if it should be changed, either from the start or from any other particular date.
The changed (revised) decision them applies from that particular date.
So there may then be a underpayment to backpaid, (or an overpayment to be recovered).

A 'supersession' is when a new decision about a benefit claim is made.
Unlike a revision, it does not change the existing decision.
The original decision remains unchanged, and the new decision replaces (supercedes) it from the date the new decision is made.
So there is no underpayment or overpayment to be considered.

The regular PIP reviews are usually supersessions.
(Technically they are new claims because the previous PIP award is ending on a set date, just new claims done in a special way).

HillStreetBlues

Newcad said:

I can't say that I've heard of one,

There was one on here not that long ago and it did generate confusion at the time.
EDIT: Found the threads
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6460109/confused-about-pip-payment-after-review
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6462653/pip-awarded-for-an-ongoing-period-meaning

poppy12345

HillStreetBlues said:

Newcad said:

I can't say that I've heard of one,

There was one on here not that long ago and it did generate confusion at the time.
EDIT: Found the threads
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6460109/confused-about-pip-payment-after-review
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6462653/pip-awarded-for-an-ongoing-period-meaning

Yes indeed, there's been many people that have received money owed from a review started by DWP. There's no guidelines as far as I'm aware and it does seem to be rather hit and miss. Some receive it and others don't. 

Newcad

HillStreetBlues said:

Newcad said:

I can't say that I've heard of one,

There was one on here not that long ago and it did generate confusion at the time.
EDIT: Found the threads
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6460109/confused-about-pip-payment-after-review
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6462653/pip-awarded-for-an-ongoing-period-meaning

Yes that is an odd one.

At first glance they appear to have done a revision and upped the DL from one date, and then done a supercession that removed the mobility from a later date.
And then they have notified both decisions in the same letter.

However try this;
Robbie64's post there about ADM A4365 and the DM's initiative (discretion) to supercede from the date that the form was issued seems to explain why the earlier date could actually be such a discretionary supercession rather than a revision.
But note that that discretion applies to a 'Change of Circumstances'.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80177327/#Comment_80177327

They have seemingly then done a 'normal' supercession for the renewal, (rather than for a change of circumstances) and that reduced the mobility.
I believe that doing the new (2nd) supercession would be correct if the discretionary supercession had changed the original award but not the end date of it.
(Not changing that end date might or might not have been correct, but with the DM doing it on their own inititave that may be what happened. Discretion is discretion to make out of the ordinary decisions).

I could be off the mark but that's the best way at the moment that I can make sense of that case, and the confusion then arises because both supercession decisions were notified as if one, in the same letter.
(There again two letters about different decisions at the same time could have been even more confusing for the claimant).

Sorry Raven2020, we have gone off topic from your question.
Have you heard anything else from the DWP yet?