Hi folks

Just wondering if anyone else has experienced a glut of weird and wonderful decisions regarding renewal of DLA/AA for mental health patients?

We are encountering benefit reductions or refusals based on the information contained in the claim pack, when all the information in the claim pack points to continuing benefit.
Renewals refused based on GP's reports.....when CPN was the nominated person.
Refusals following visit by EMP - but the report focussed almost completely on the physical problems, or lack of them.

Is there some sort of clamp down on mental health claims? The cynic in me thinks that mental health claimants are an easy target because they dont always challenge the decision. When they do challenge the decision the wait is interminable and the experience at Tribunal is traumatic. Or is it just that the decision makers have no clue about mental health problems?


Margie

Yes, we seem to have exactly the same experience. We have regular liaison with the local DBC which doesn't seem to help. I don't think it's a clampdown, they just seem to be particularly poor at dealing with mental health claims. We've provided awareness training in the past, will keep up with the meetings, not sure what else we can do.

Tribunals are another bugbear - is it just me, or do they start from the premise that an appellant with mental health problems is likely to be an unreliable witness and that bullying and hectoring is an appropriate way to elicit information? One last year was so bad the support worker who came as witness complained in great and specific detail and eventually received a letter (initially sent to the wrong address) from Customer Services saying they couldn't put it before the District Chair because he hadn't given specific examples of what he felt had been bad...

Any ideas about how we can address any of this?

I think you should send the reply from customer services directly to the regional chairman; if the complaint was about the panel members' behaviour customer services should never have handled it in the first place - it's their role to investigate complaints about admin not judiciary.

And the wrong address too - that sounds like a customer service section that has seriously lost the plot. Complain about the way the complaint was handled.

I don't put GP details on section 1s for clients with mental health problems. It's the same for schools. They're both an easy port of call to get info to turn a claim down.

The new claim forms have a 'consent' page. I've doctored this to withdraw consent to contact GPs for someone where it would be totally irrelevant.

Ultimately the situation can only be improved by consciousness raising with DMs. Wasn't there something on this where Sutton DBU responded positively and Wembley just didn't respond? I don't know what happened with all the others.

Fri 11-Feb-05 02:32 PM by shawn

We regularly get problems re DLA and mental health clients. Typically, DMs will either use EMP reports or contact the GP and ignore the specialists. Despite being assured there are 'new' measures to be proactive and contact the most appropriate source of evidence, we routinely find this doesn't happen - especially re mental health clients.

Typically, i find renewal claims changing (meaning awards being reduced or stopped) with no apparent attempt to get supporting info.

In one case i had to phone DWP (re IS claim) and 'remind' them that the client had identified his CPN as a contact. Within a short space of time they overturned their refusal into an award. Similar story with DLA. Another example was a DLA client who has significant needs having her benefit stopped altogether on renewal. The claim form had been reasonably completed by her parents. This was again quickly overturned and her original award reinstated following (as it happens) an excellent GP letter.

This leads to another problem. Although there may be no legal requirement to do so, in cases of significant needs (mental or physical), there seems to be a lack of consideration given to looking at previous claims/awards and to what extent conditions and their effects may have changed. We know clients, without specialist help, often mess up their forms and fail to appreciate the qualifying criteria, but DMs often fail to demonstrate they have fully explained why they think a condition has miraculously improved or disappeared.

As for tribunals, i would recommend attending any tribunal user group meeting (apologies if i'm preaching to the converted). This may prove helpful.

We have aregular issue with this . The problem is the undulating effects of the illness. The clients often stabilise for periods and then do not fit the higher level criteria and at times don't qualify.
As one of my clients who has schizophrenia,stated she knows people who get themselves sectioned or hospitalised simply too ensure they don't lose DLA because of past experiences of losing benefit. It,s a sad state of affairs.

CDLA/3986/2003 should help with the "periods of stability" question.

CDLA/3986/2003 is available in the cmmrs decisions on rightsnet area of rightsnet swopshop.

Thankyou for the CD