We are increasingly getting cases where a client has a medical condition which is progressive and has an award which is coming up for renewal. The client completes the forms and then finds he loses his entire award, or it gets downgraded: these nearly always end up at appeal.

One of the points we emphasise at appeal is the fact that they have had an award prior to this application (in some cases more than one) - they have a progressive condition and therefore their care/mobilty needs haven't changed, and have in fact gotten worse to a greater or lesser extent.

On almost all occasions, the Tribunal dismisses that arguement and expresses the opinion that the previous award was too lenient/made without the benefit of an EMP report/the DM was too generous - ie, in their view the award was not justified.

My own view is that if the previous award(s) were not justifiable then the powers that be should seek to review the original decision. If they don't, then that clearly signifies that they accept that it was a valid award and that the client was disabled to a significant degree: the Tribunal should therefore look seriously at the contention that the client has a progressive disabling condition which merited a previous award and which logically should warrent a further award at the same level at least, as the condition has not improved, is hardly likely to and is going to (or has) got worse.

I think all the foregoing makes logical reading - well you get the picture anyway - are other reps experiencing similar arguements?

What gets me is when they write in their reasons (DMs that is) "Award not changed until date of renewal as claimant was't to know.".

I think you're right Mike if they're saying the original decision was so bloody awful they should have the guts to supersede it properly.

And the reason they don't is purely so they don't have to show grounds and so tribunals can brush them off easily and most claimants presumably give up.

I totally agree with everything you say have seen lots of things like it myself but I have no idea what to do about it in any practical way.

I have come up against this issue in the past. The argument to use is that the original award was made based on the evidence available at the time the decision was made. In lots of cases the evidence has been lost or destroyed by the department. You can tell if this is happened by referring to the decision codes used to make the decision. If a medical decision code has been used and the department cannot come up with a copy of that evidence an assumption can be made that the evidence must have been pretty strong to make the award. Therefore on renewal you would have to get confirmation from a doctor that the condition is progressive and care and mobility needs have increased.