- Posts: 11
× Members
Award removed but condition deteriorated
- John
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
2 months 3 weeks ago #295255 by John
Award removed but condition deteriorated was created by John
I yesterday made a post, which never appeared, about obligation on the DWP to explain why an award has been removed despite no reported improvement in condition (a deterioration was actually reported), asking whether there was any such obligation, via case law or legislation, of which advisors were aware? Anticipating challenging an outcome based on PA4 recommendations, but no decision has yet been made.
If my previous post does show up, apologies for the duplication.
If my previous post does show up, apologies for the duplication.
- LL26
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 1429
2 months 3 weeks ago #295299 by LL26
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by LL26 on topic Award removed but condition deteriorated
Hi John,
I'm sorry if your post got missed. All posts get moderated, and sometimes times it takes a while if we are busy.
Since you appear to have been in award of benefit when DWP changed their decision this will be a Supersession.(Legal name for change of benefit.) DWP do need to provide a proper explanation of why they have changed the award. It is not sufficient for them to say they have received a new assessment report, (where presumably the assessor hasn't fully grasped the health issues and hence scores few or zero points.)
You might be interested in reading this set of posts. My potted guide to Supersessions!
www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/kunena/10-dla-...80%99ve-left-it-late
I'm not sure what stage you are at - next steps are Mandatory Reconsideration followed by appeal.
If you have simply received the review decision, MR is the next step.
Have a look at the PA4.
Work out the major criticisms and see if you can condense into 4 or 5 bullet points, and give examples of the worse to illustrate each bullet point
For example
•assessor was rude and hostile throughout
• the assessor has failed to record what I was actually said - I don't live in a house, I do not take a bath as I only have a shower room.....
• the assessor did not appear to understand autism - the assessor us a paramedic, with no obvious spevialist mental health qualifications, he perpetually asked about why I don't take medicine to help prevent my autism...
• the report had many spelling errors and grammatical errors which given the other errors where facts have been misrecorded, shows a general lack of attention to detail
Don't nit pick everything, and certainly not all the spelling mistakes.
Start the MR letter with an overview of your health.
Explain thst you have been on benefits for X years and your condition has not changed and/or is worse explain the deterioration.
Hence is Supersession case. DWP have not explained why they have changed my benefit. They rely on eg an inaccurate and poorly worded assessment report thst does not reflect my true health condition/s.
Then put down your bullet points and examples.
Next, go through each descriptor- say what points DWP awarded- is it correct- if not explain why you can't do the descriptor task and why, say what points you have previously if relevant. You can say what points should have been awarded and why. Give examples of what went wrong.
If you need to do an appeal. You'll need to fill out the SSCS1 form. You can do this online. (Google 'online SSCS1') Fill out all the admin questions name address etc, and in the Grounds of Appeal you can simply say eg 'DWP havereduced/removed my benefit but my health condition/s has not improved '
If you have already written a full MR letter as suggested above you can also add that you explained this fully in the MR letter and DWP have ignored this. No need to repeat what's in the MR letter.
If you're at the SSCS1 stage and didn't do a full MR, then write what I suggested as MR as Grounds of Appeal instead. However it's best to do this as a separate document and upload it, as there is a weird formatting glitch that removes all the paragraphs etc if you simply write in the Grounds of Appeal box.
I hope this helps.
Good luck let us know how you get on.
LL26
I'm sorry if your post got missed. All posts get moderated, and sometimes times it takes a while if we are busy.
Since you appear to have been in award of benefit when DWP changed their decision this will be a Supersession.(Legal name for change of benefit.) DWP do need to provide a proper explanation of why they have changed the award. It is not sufficient for them to say they have received a new assessment report, (where presumably the assessor hasn't fully grasped the health issues and hence scores few or zero points.)
You might be interested in reading this set of posts. My potted guide to Supersessions!
www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/kunena/10-dla-...80%99ve-left-it-late
I'm not sure what stage you are at - next steps are Mandatory Reconsideration followed by appeal.
If you have simply received the review decision, MR is the next step.
Have a look at the PA4.
Work out the major criticisms and see if you can condense into 4 or 5 bullet points, and give examples of the worse to illustrate each bullet point
For example
•assessor was rude and hostile throughout
• the assessor has failed to record what I was actually said - I don't live in a house, I do not take a bath as I only have a shower room.....
• the assessor did not appear to understand autism - the assessor us a paramedic, with no obvious spevialist mental health qualifications, he perpetually asked about why I don't take medicine to help prevent my autism...
• the report had many spelling errors and grammatical errors which given the other errors where facts have been misrecorded, shows a general lack of attention to detail
Don't nit pick everything, and certainly not all the spelling mistakes.
Start the MR letter with an overview of your health.
Explain thst you have been on benefits for X years and your condition has not changed and/or is worse explain the deterioration.
Hence is Supersession case. DWP have not explained why they have changed my benefit. They rely on eg an inaccurate and poorly worded assessment report thst does not reflect my true health condition/s.
Then put down your bullet points and examples.
Next, go through each descriptor- say what points DWP awarded- is it correct- if not explain why you can't do the descriptor task and why, say what points you have previously if relevant. You can say what points should have been awarded and why. Give examples of what went wrong.
If you need to do an appeal. You'll need to fill out the SSCS1 form. You can do this online. (Google 'online SSCS1') Fill out all the admin questions name address etc, and in the Grounds of Appeal you can simply say eg 'DWP havereduced/removed my benefit but my health condition/s has not improved '
If you have already written a full MR letter as suggested above you can also add that you explained this fully in the MR letter and DWP have ignored this. No need to repeat what's in the MR letter.
If you're at the SSCS1 stage and didn't do a full MR, then write what I suggested as MR as Grounds of Appeal instead. However it's best to do this as a separate document and upload it, as there is a weird formatting glitch that removes all the paragraphs etc if you simply write in the Grounds of Appeal box.
I hope this helps.
Good luck let us know how you get on.
LL26
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jorvick88, John
- John
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 11
2 months 3 weeks ago #295300 by John
Replied by John on topic Award removed but condition deteriorated
Hi LL, thanks for your reply! My first post had more detail, but no worries if it's been missed.
This is actually for my partner's PIP benefit. I've got the PA4 and sent to the DWP a letter correcting errors in fact and logic (not a mandatory consideration request, as not yet at this stage). But the supercession information will be really useful for the MR, if required. The last two times we've been able to overturn the decision before the appeal stage (one by MR and one by pre-tribunal DWP phone call) so I'm hopeful we have a strong case.
This PA4 is actually by far the least appalling one we've had, although the threshold is low and it's still littered with mistakes (also the DWP confirmed receipt of the report by text less than 30 minutes after the assessment ended which suggests it was rushed too!).
Previously, all of the impacts for my partner were caused by mental health issues. But a new diagnosis of a physical condition meant I asked for a change of circumstance review, and the assessor awarded max mobility points for the last activity, and removed points for all activities where the cause is mental health issues - probably betrays a lack of understanding of such issues, but anyway...
You've given me some excellent pointers so I really appreciate it - thanks again.
This is actually for my partner's PIP benefit. I've got the PA4 and sent to the DWP a letter correcting errors in fact and logic (not a mandatory consideration request, as not yet at this stage). But the supercession information will be really useful for the MR, if required. The last two times we've been able to overturn the decision before the appeal stage (one by MR and one by pre-tribunal DWP phone call) so I'm hopeful we have a strong case.
This PA4 is actually by far the least appalling one we've had, although the threshold is low and it's still littered with mistakes (also the DWP confirmed receipt of the report by text less than 30 minutes after the assessment ended which suggests it was rushed too!).
Previously, all of the impacts for my partner were caused by mental health issues. But a new diagnosis of a physical condition meant I asked for a change of circumstance review, and the assessor awarded max mobility points for the last activity, and removed points for all activities where the cause is mental health issues - probably betrays a lack of understanding of such issues, but anyway...
You've given me some excellent pointers so I really appreciate it - thanks again.
The following user(s) said Thank You: denby, Gary, LL26
- Jorvick88
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 14
2 months 2 weeks ago #295391 by Jorvick88
Replied by Jorvick88 on topic Award removed but condition deteriorated
Hello John!
Not in any way wishing to butt in, just commenting that I'm dealing with a broadly similar scenario for a close relative. Long standing Clinical Diagnosis of both Autism and ADHD, awarded full PIP Daily Living over a decade ago, but they missed Mobility even though that was correctly claimed for, and fully justified.
The 1st 5 Year Review agreed to keep the PIP Award the same, i.e. with just Enhanced PIP Daily Living and no PIP Mobility.
The DWP should have self-reviewed the PIP Mobility after the change in Law, but they didn't so do when that chance came up.
Then, at the 10 Year Review, after a clearly scripted and disingenuous Telephone Assessment that uncovered no new improvement changes to either health or needs, they inexplicably removed PIP Daily Living, but awarded Standard Mobility...because of Autism!
The DWP Decision was sent via a 3rd party snail mail service (so an additional step additional to final delivery via Royal Mail), so that did not reach us for 8 days. That slow delivery obviously limited the time to pull together an MR, so I think that was a deliberate DWP delaying strategy.
We then asked for the PA4 promptly after receiving the DWP Decision (I now know that, ideally, we should have asked for that sooner), but have heard nothing since, so we do not have the new Report to analyse. We do, however, have our own Recording, so have a drafted a meticulous self-transcription of everything that was said.
MR date looming, so we will get that in on time but, given the above DWP delaying tactics, it may be missing a detailed rebuttal of the Report, even if it arrives tomorrow (which I doubt it will).
Best advice I can give, is to assume the DWP will elect not to do the decent thing at MR, so draft the MR for the Appeal Tribunal, as that's almost certainly where ours is going, and probably yours too.
But I do hope they see sense at MR, in both cases.
Jorvick88
Not in any way wishing to butt in, just commenting that I'm dealing with a broadly similar scenario for a close relative. Long standing Clinical Diagnosis of both Autism and ADHD, awarded full PIP Daily Living over a decade ago, but they missed Mobility even though that was correctly claimed for, and fully justified.
The 1st 5 Year Review agreed to keep the PIP Award the same, i.e. with just Enhanced PIP Daily Living and no PIP Mobility.
The DWP should have self-reviewed the PIP Mobility after the change in Law, but they didn't so do when that chance came up.
Then, at the 10 Year Review, after a clearly scripted and disingenuous Telephone Assessment that uncovered no new improvement changes to either health or needs, they inexplicably removed PIP Daily Living, but awarded Standard Mobility...because of Autism!
The DWP Decision was sent via a 3rd party snail mail service (so an additional step additional to final delivery via Royal Mail), so that did not reach us for 8 days. That slow delivery obviously limited the time to pull together an MR, so I think that was a deliberate DWP delaying strategy.
We then asked for the PA4 promptly after receiving the DWP Decision (I now know that, ideally, we should have asked for that sooner), but have heard nothing since, so we do not have the new Report to analyse. We do, however, have our own Recording, so have a drafted a meticulous self-transcription of everything that was said.
MR date looming, so we will get that in on time but, given the above DWP delaying tactics, it may be missing a detailed rebuttal of the Report, even if it arrives tomorrow (which I doubt it will).
Best advice I can give, is to assume the DWP will elect not to do the decent thing at MR, so draft the MR for the Appeal Tribunal, as that's almost certainly where ours is going, and probably yours too.
But I do hope they see sense at MR, in both cases.
Jorvick88
The following user(s) said Thank You: denby, John
- BIS
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 8502
2 months 2 weeks ago #295404 by BIS
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by BIS on topic Award removed but condition deteriorated
Hi John
I did reply to your previous post - the other day benefitsandwork.co.uk/kunena/10-dla-esa-...easoning-reqd#295179, and said that I was sorry that we hadn't replied earlier. LL26 has given you a more comprehensive reply, than I did.
BIS
I did reply to your previous post - the other day benefitsandwork.co.uk/kunena/10-dla-esa-...easoning-reqd#295179, and said that I was sorry that we hadn't replied earlier. LL26 has given you a more comprehensive reply, than I did.
BIS
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: John
- John
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 11
2 months 2 weeks ago #295422 by John
Replied by John on topic Award removed but condition deteriorated
Hi Jorvick,
Not at all, it's what forums are for!
I'm no expert, but surely it is reasonable to ask for an extension to the MR date, where the report upon which the decision is based has been requested but not received? Otherwise, they are preventing you from challenging the decision properly, given you only know the outcome, but not the "evidence" upon which it is based.
Yes, I'm anticipating a disappointing outcome from the decision and subsequent MR, no matter how robust a challenge I am able to mount; the last time I challenged the MR my arguments were roundly ignored (because there was no logical argument against them, I suspect), until a pre-tribunal phone call from the DWP to make an offer, presumably because they knew they would lose. But I am drafting something - based on the report I think I'm going to need to lean on some of the rules around supersession that others have helpfully pointed me towards.
The one thing that, counter-intuitevely, is going to make it harder this time is that the PA4 this time round appears on a first read to be not entirely incompetently put together. For me, a terrible PA4 can actually be helpful when the DWP is just going to make an unjust decision anyway!
The latest PA4 records the assessment reasonably accurately, the HP is then just very selective and illogical in terms of the pieces of "evidence" they use to make the case for removal of all daily living points - eg, spending time with the dog in the house is given as proof to support the opinion that my partner must therefore be able to make food, as one of many examples.
I wish you all the best with your relative.
Not at all, it's what forums are for!
I'm no expert, but surely it is reasonable to ask for an extension to the MR date, where the report upon which the decision is based has been requested but not received? Otherwise, they are preventing you from challenging the decision properly, given you only know the outcome, but not the "evidence" upon which it is based.
Yes, I'm anticipating a disappointing outcome from the decision and subsequent MR, no matter how robust a challenge I am able to mount; the last time I challenged the MR my arguments were roundly ignored (because there was no logical argument against them, I suspect), until a pre-tribunal phone call from the DWP to make an offer, presumably because they knew they would lose. But I am drafting something - based on the report I think I'm going to need to lean on some of the rules around supersession that others have helpfully pointed me towards.
The one thing that, counter-intuitevely, is going to make it harder this time is that the PA4 this time round appears on a first read to be not entirely incompetently put together. For me, a terrible PA4 can actually be helpful when the DWP is just going to make an unjust decision anyway!
The latest PA4 records the assessment reasonably accurately, the HP is then just very selective and illogical in terms of the pieces of "evidence" they use to make the case for removal of all daily living points - eg, spending time with the dog in the house is given as proof to support the opinion that my partner must therefore be able to make food, as one of many examples.
I wish you all the best with your relative.
The following user(s) said Thank You: LL26
Moderators: Gordon, Gary, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, Chris, David