from hansard ....

asked for a 'subsstantive' answer as to why the number of unsuccessful dla claims has increased over the last 3 years, the chief executive of the Disability and Carers Service, on behalf of the govt, said -

(now concentrate, because this is quite tricky ....)

'The percentage rejections on disability living allowance claims has increased since 2002 because the conditions of entitlement to benefit have been found not to be satisfied in a greater proportion of claims'

Yes minister,

suppose it's got nothing to do with the advice from their medical boarding section then.
( I am tempted to comment upon the standard of that advice but I'm not medically qualified and I don't want to be sued.)
It would be interesting to know what proportion of unsuccessful claims are appealed and what ratio of appeals are successful and what ratio propotionally un appealed decisions would be successful if they were appealed.

Ahhh so that's the reason! Here was cynical little me thinking it had something to do with the lack of understanding, chronic wrong thinking and inadequate training for those involved in the decision making process.... should have realised it was more akin to "because I said so, that's why"

Reminds me of a DLA appeal I did last year. It was a supersession of an indefinite award after a periodic check.

The DM decided that my client was only entitled to the lower rate care after previously being awarded the midle rate care. The grounds for supersession was mistake as to a material fact, the material fact being that she was not entitled to middle rate only the lover rate.

I put in a full written submission citing several commissioners decisions defining material facts and I argued that the DM had failed point to a single matrtial fact relevant to my clients case.

The chair adjourned and asked for a second submision from rhe SOS and a prensenting officer to attend the reconvened hearing.

The presentiong officer concedd that it was difficult to argue mistake as to material fact but went on to argue mistake as to law.

The hearing went on for an hour and a half and was then adjouned to consider whther grounds for supersession had bee shown (but not before the presnting officer tried to grill my client at which point I asked for a ruling from the Tribunal over the supersession issue)

The Tribunal ruled that there was not sufficient evidence either for mistake as to material fact or mistake as to law and so my client got her beneift reinstated.

The whole process took nearly a year to resolve and as my client was on IS she had lost the severe disability premium as well as suffering the reduction in her DLA

So now we know.... more claims are turned down because we turn more claims down (and the subtext is that we will turn even more down if we can get away with it)

What is the difference between 'medical' adjudication (decision making) and 'disability' adjudication? Is it not true that the purpose of having 'disability' adjudication was to demedicalise the then existing system of adjudication?

Too much is based on 'medical' matters. Having medical evidence is an absolute necessity and again in weighing the medical evidences like in courts, it is necessary to have 'probative value' of the evidence produced! We have come back in full circle as far as medical matters and DLA are concerned. This is something I have observed.

Sanat

I do find it disturbing that such a senior public servant can get away with such a vacuous answer. Surely parliament should have called him back and said 'eh hang on a minute mate, thats not good enough...'

i think this response is as useless as the "before i answer that question let me first say something utterly contemptuous and completely inconsequential" that ministers usually adopt when asked anything