I am working on an appeal and amonst the reasons for the decision the DM quotes R(M)1/96, relating not being bound to take into consideration the decision on a previous claim.
I cannot find this decision in the usual places, does anyone have a copy and could they fax it to me on, 0141-778-4528.

Client previously in receipt of HRC HRM, review took everything away, she has among other conditions, MUltinodal Osteoathritis involving both large and small joints, so there is no likelyhood of any improvement in her condition.

Merry Xmas

Willie Sinclair

Have a copy here on my desk. The DWP routinely trot this one out on renewal appeals (which I assume this is, rather than a supersession) and it may be worth reminding the tribunal that it also states :-

'However, the requirement for a tribunal to give reasons for its decision means that it is necessary for a tribunal to explain why it is not renewing a previous award unless this is obvious from its findings.'

Not sure it will be much more help to you than that, but if you want a copy, I'd be happy to send it up to you.

And Merry Xmas to you too.

CD also available here: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/advisers/docs/commdecs/

Yes, R(M) 1/96 is helpful but watch out for selective quoting. The DWP have been known to just quote part of paragraph 13 which reads:

'... there can be no question of the tribunal being bound to follow any previous decision awarding benefit for an earlier period, ......'

But this technical point in isolation would detract from the more reasonable obligation to the claimant at paragraph 15 that:

'It does however, seem to me to follow from what is said by the Court of Appeal in Evans, Kitchen & Others, that while a previous award carries no entitlement to preferential treatment on a renewal claim for a continuing condition, the need to give reasons to explain the outcome of the case to the claimant means either that it must be reasonably obvious from the tribunal’s findings why they are not renewing the previous award, or that some brief explanation must be given for what the claimant will otherwise perceive as unfair. This is particularly so where (as in the present and no doubt many other cases) the claimant points to the existence of his previous award and contends that his condition has remained the same, or worsened, since it was decided he met the conditions for benefit. An adverse decision without understandable reasons in such circumstances is bound to lead to a feeling of injustice and while tribunals may of course take different views on the effects of primary evidence, or reach different conclusions on the basis of further or more up to date evidence without being in error of law, I do not think it is imposing too great a burden on them to make sure that the reason for an apparent variation in the treatment of similar relevant facts appears from the record of their decision.'

This later reasoning seems to me to be the crucial point in protecting an award where there has been no improvement in health since the previous claim.

willie you will find this decision on the dwp website.

merry xmas, gerry

Hi Gerry I did not realise you had learned about this internet thingy,

Thanx to the responses, I was sent a copy of the decision,

Merry Xmas to everyone who does not know me, as I have said this already to the three people who do.

Willie

R(M)1/96 is on the OSSCSC site and is much easier to save on your hard drive than the DWP version, but I agree that the DLA unit often trot this out in renewal cases, but if they do you are half way there because they dont understand what the decision really means.

They are not bound by decisions on previous claims, but if they give no reason for departing from them and there has been no improvement in the persons condition R(M)1/96 then becomes very useful for your client.

Incidentally I did once win a case at Tribunal where the DM cited R(M)1/96 and the case involved a supersession of an indefinite award. There were two hearings and two written submissions from the DLA unit

There was a presenting officer at the second hearing who was most embarrassed trying to defend what were quite frankly cut and paste jobs that had been done with little regard either to the law or to the facts