My client was in receipt of HRMC and MRCC. The DBU instigated a periodic enquiry. However, instead of sending client a claim pack as per usual, they sent out an EMP resulting in the award being removed completely.

In doing so, the Decision Maker said that Reg 32 of the 1987 Claims & Payments regs had been used which resulted in a supersession under sction 10 of the SSA 1998.

My impression was that Reg 32 placed the onus on the claimant to furnish the Secretary of State with info or evidence about a claim, so that a revision or supersession could be carried out. The usal way of doing this, by issuing a claim pack or enquiry form, was not done in this case.

Is it possible to argue that a faulty superssession was carried out by the DBU in failing to first request information from the claimant in the usual way by issuing a periodic review claim pack, prior to sending out an EMP?

any comments on this would be appretiated.

Was the original claim determined on any sort of medical evidence, GP factual report or another EMP?

If so, then the decision has not been basd on a change in circumstance, just a different medical opinion. That would make the decision invalid.

The danger is that a Tribunal can now make its mind up either way, because they can look at the whole of the claim again.

The original claim decision was based on the claim pack evidence only. Have obtained a supporting letter from GP but which is not great evidence, which is why i'm looking for a technical avenue.

Your client mhas not been given any opportunity to inform the Secretary of State of any change in circumstances (if any changes have occurred), as far\ as I am aware, he has to notify the claimant, if he intends to supersede the original decision of his own accord. (SS&CS(D&A) regs 1999. This is usually done by sending a form out.

The appeal papers should show what triggered the SoS to instigate a review.

Reg 32 of the Claims and payments Regs does not provide the grounds for supersession or revision. The grounds are to be found in Reg 3(5) or Reg 6(2) of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisons and Appeals) Regs 1999.

The burden is on the SOS to prove that the grounds exist. A diffeerent medical opinion will not of itself be grounds for revision/supersession (R(M)5/86), and there is a distinction to be made between primary and secondary facts (R(S)4/86). DM's often dont understand that distinction

I ran a case like this a couple of years ago and the Tribunal ruled that the SOS had not established the grounds.

Send me an email and I can send the submission

Paul, Ive tried emailing the submissions but they have bounced back. There are two of them because the chairadjourned the first hearing, ordered a new submission from the DWP and a presenting officer to attend.

I did a second submission myself as the DWP's was virtually identical to their first one. Ive sent them both to you by post.

If you can give me an alternative email address even if its hotmail or something I will email them to you there and at least that way you can do cut and paste job

Ive sent them to your alternative email address

Received over the weekend - thanks. appeal adjourned again this morning for further submissions.