A client of mine was awarded high mobility / low care, but as a result of an investigation, this has now been stopped. The investgation lasted from Feb - Sept 04. During the investigation period, my client was in receipt of his DLA payments. Now the DWP are seeking to retreive the payment made from Feb to Sept. Will it be worth appealing the decision the retrieve payments, and also to appeal the decision to stop DLA payments. The client still has back problems and support from his GP. His condition is such that he can walk one day but will suffer extreme fatigue and pain for days after. Thanks for any comments.

Itis for the S.of S. to prove their case. See the posting this morning below
"DLA/op and error of fact.

Definately worth appealing, especially as your client has a supportive GP.

May be a good idea to get your client to start making a simple day to diary so that it will be easier to calculate good and bad days.

I am familiar with this case and know that video evidence has him walking 2 miles on a good day but is in considerate pain and discomfort afterwards. His gp has advised him to do this when possible as it will help his problems.

There is a useful Scottish Court of Session decision on video evidence: Brown v The Yorkhill National Health Service Trust which used to be on their website but I can't find it now. You may find it very useful as it deals with fluctuation in conditions.

Brown v The Yorkhill National Trust is available here

(via the court of session website @ www.scotcourts.gov.uk).

Thank you for your assistance in finding the Brown v The Yorkhill National Trust court session. Most useful.

RE: Brown v Yorkhill NHS Ttust.

Hopefully the link below will work to the judgement

http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2003/244.html

David

Thanks for your help. Definitly will advise the diary idea.

You may find decision R(IB) 2/99 useful, especially its referral to R(A) 2/74.

i haven't come across any DLA fraud cases.

would i be correct in thinking that fraud investigations are mainly instigated as a result of allegations, anonymous or otherwise?

an investigation from Feb to Sept is a lengthy period. was the person under surveillance throughout that period?

Have you seen CDLA/1823/2004? This deals with the issue of what the DWP must establish in order to successfully revise or supersede a DLA decision for a past period. In particular it deals with alleged overpayments arsing as a result of purported revisions/supersessions.

A summary of CDLA/1823/2004, together with a link to the full decision, can be found in the briefcase area of rightsnet.

(NB - the above link will not as work from next Monday, 23 May, when our new briefcase area will will be launched with subscriptions, providing fully searchable and cross referenced summaries of key commissioner's decisions added to the Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' website)

Irresepective of CDLA/1823/2004 and arguments as to whether the claimant "failed to disclose" in this instance, I think the department would struggle to make an overpayment stick at least for the period February to September.

What should the claimant have disclosed? Something that was already known to the department - ie that same thing that caused them to instigate the fraud investigation. Hinchey wouldn't help them with this one.

*Keep pluging*

The investigation was from 2nd feb- 1st april. claimant was interviewed in may by fraud team there statements were made on 4th june and then client was given a result of this towards the end of september, resulting in losing his dla and having to repay it all backdated til 2nd feb.

I'd be interested to know what evidence they obtained, was it video or just information from an IUC.
If it was video evidence you would have to counter that evidence by obtaining evidence of what your client was like on a bad day.
If it was only an IUC then you can usually blow that out of the water at a Tribunal because the investigating officers never make enough finding of fact to enable a decision to be reviewed then superceeded

You should also look at CDLA/5803/1999(*33/01) Commissioner Jacobs addresses the content of the DLA forms being the clients belief but not necessarily precise facts. It may help.

A big thank you to everyone who has contributed toward this case. Appeal to take place shortly and I will post the result accordingly.
Thank you all again.
Kev.

Fri 10-Jun-05 02:09 PM by ken

RE: DLA Investigation/Fraud

Appeal was attended yesterday. A 90 minute thorough grilling for the appellant from the panel and a presenting officer who 'surprisingly' was not prepared for the case. The client has his low rate care reinstated but his mobility was stopped. The overpayment stood but was obviously reduced. The video evidence was not used as part of the decision and it was my belief that the panel were not convinced about the variability of the appellants condition.The person concerned has now been advised to offer the DWP £2.00 per week to clear the remaining arrears.