Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
MM VS DWP
Hi there,
I’ve had a client who states that she made an application for review for her PIP as she heard about MM vs DWP and believed that she should have scored 2 points for the mixing with people descriptor. This would have given her 8 points as she only received 6 points in daily living so would have drastically changed her award and she would have got backdated money. However the review was unsuccessful and her letter states that she cannot appeal the decision. She has been told that all she can do is re=apply though is aware that they review the benefit as a whole and her mobility component may be at risk so she does not want to do that.
She states that she has made a complaint with the DWP and got in contact with her MP and she wants to know if there is more she can do.
I was alarmed to hear that there was no recourse to appeal with these reviews, is this correct? Though I have been aware of the ruling for a while, I have not come across any review decisions, positive or negative until now. I have not seen her letter as I only spoke to her over the phone but she did read it out verbatim.
Thanks for any help/advice in advance.
Could we have some dates please? When was the decision which your client is challenging made and when is it effective from? When did she request the revision/supersession?
Also, is this about going from 9b to 9c? Because if it is simply that your client wants to go from 9a to 9b, MM won’t help.
Could we have some dates please? When was the decision which your client is challenging made and when is it effective from? When did she request the revision/supersession?
Also, is this about going from 9b to 9c? Because if it is simply that your client wants to go from 9a to 9b, MM won’t help.
Ah - that’s what it is! she wants to go from 9a to 9b. Seems the ruling in the supreme court was simply for people who wanted to go from 9b to 9c and nothing else? Thank you for this prompt its been a while since I’ve looked at the ruling and my source didn’t specifically state that so didn’t read between the lines.
She’s only recently received the decision but she did state that the decision took 15 months to make
Would she be able to argue going from 9a to 9c?
Would she be able to argue going from 9a to 9c?
This is why I am interested in the dates.
If she is in time for an “any grounds” revision, then sure she can argue for whatever she likes.
If she is out of time, then she would be reliant on showing the decision was in error of law.
Whilst the decision may or may not be in error of law, MM will be of no assistance at all to her if she was scored at 9a. All it does is speak to the differences between 9b and 9c.
You may educate me otherwise Elliot, but I think that someone could potentially go from 9a to 9c if the social support received was not contemporaneous (the timing issue). Eg, someone has regular sessions with a MH Professional and this gives them the ability to engage face to face with others at a later time. That sort of claim would have been rejected by the DWP prior to the SC judgement. It argued that social support had to be provided at the time of the engagement, but these cases will have to be looked at again in the LEAP review. Admittedly it will only apply to a limited number of claimants.