Whilst I agree that for many claimants, refusal is taken as a judgement of being ill (or not) and clearer information regarding the conditions that have to be met is welcomed, it would seem that advisors are to become decision makers when assisting claimants and not 'encourage' people to make claims. Well, I am afraid I will still assist people and leave the decision making to the department. I am sure many of you will have done claims which seem weak, but with medical evidence, become a strong and successful case. I feel capable of explaining to those who fail, why, and that it is not questioning their illness.

Medical evidence can prove that a person has a condition, it does not always prove that the client meets the criteria for DLA. It is wrong to build up the hopes of someone who you know does not meet the criteria. For borderline cases i am always honest about prospects but will have a go at a claim. As paid advisors we should also be aware of using up time on cases that have no merit.

i was encouraged to hear that the DWP acknowledged that there are problems arising from the fact that the conditions of entitlement to DLA are not widely understood and were conducting research (since researching can imply that solutions are being sought.)

i probably should have known better. the research takes on a predictable role, and, unless we see a change in direction, i anticipate
unlawful control of the claims gateway, as we have seen with CMS. i think it needs to be nipped in the bud, and made clear that restrictions in the rights of disabled people to claim benefit are not acceptable.

this doesn't mean that they should not seek solutions to the problem of 'no hope' claims, merely that they should prefer solutions which do not make matters worse. we live in hope...

ps note how the problem has changed from lack of understanding, to a problem of claims which should not have been made...

Although I haven't read the report, I'm wondering if they are referring only to first claim decisions, or those that are overturned on appeal. If not, then the statistics are misleading.

I took on one client who had been advised to withdraw an appeal because of the (lack of ) medical evidence. I submitted a late appeal, then a written submission to the Tribunal. I did not produce any more medical evidence.

At the actual hearing I did not even present the case. The Tribunal awarded low rate attendance allowance on the basis of the written submissions before I got my papers together.

The previous adviser who withdrew worked for an organisation with an LSC quality mark for specialist advice. My clients case was at least partially LSC funded up to the withdrawal of the original appeal.

Paid advisers should give clients their best shot and not discourage clients merely because their doctor is non committal

I am seeing specialists in the CAB who are funded by LSC contracts being discouraged from pursuing appeals for clients who have failed a DLA claim. This is due to the nature of the funding: advisers get paid now "per head" and are expected to open and close 25 cases per month to meet their target to get continued funding. If they made the initial DLA claim for the client, they are not allowed to count the subsequent appeal as a new matter (new case). This means their managers are making it policy not to pursue appeals because they are too time consuming and cannot be counted towards the stats.
The LSC has made constant changes to the terms of the contracts it hands out for the past 10 years and the cumulative effect is to cut the funding for welfare rights contracts. Unfortunately, the CAB has done nothing whatsoever to resist these cuts, but instead is restricting the service it gives to clients in order to meet LSC targets. At least the Law Society sued the LSC over the cuts and won some concessions; but this was mostly to do with legal aid for criminal cases, not welfare rights.

Your worst fears are indeed confirmed Tony. Qualitative in-depth interviews were carried out with a 100 people whose initial DLA claim had been disallowed. These were restricted to people aged between 16 and 64 and to cases where DCS judged the disallowance to be obvious because either the applicant failed to meet basic eligibility criteria or failed to show in their application that they had care and/or mobility needs that would entitle them to the benefit.

Only cases in which the allowed time for making an appeal had passed were included. So, in the words of the research report "all the applications were, therefore, 'closed' cases". I'm not really convinced that this approach actually does anything more than lead to its own foregone conclusions to be honest. The simple fact that DCS felt that these cases didn't meet elgibility criteria is meaningless to a large extent, given the well-known and well-publicised problems with decision making standards and success rates at appeal tribunals.

For example, in the recent 2007/08 report from the President of the Appeals Service, it is noted that additional evidence given to a tribunal that was not available to the decision-maker was responsible for a different decision in 73% of cases!!! and 40% of DLA decisions were overturned on appeal with 17% adjourned.

I'd love to know when similar research on DLA take-up will be undertaken, so that all those people who clearly should be recieving DLA but are not will be looked at and ways to reach them undertaken but I'm certainly not holding my breath. Take-up seems to be a dirty word amongst officials these days......

i think 'officials' is a dirty word with the electorate these days...

the report references related research on take up, which can be found here - http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep442.pdf

i found it turgid to the point of being unreadable, and its recommendations as far as i can see relate to models for further phases of research...urgghh...so yes, i would say the issue of DLA take is well and truly sir humphried.

the report under discussion however, seems to me to have been written to a very tight remit, and if it's not to pave the way for IT under development, including a son of cms -type gateway, i'm a dutchman - not that i'm implying anything untoward on the part of the reseacher. one or two comments suggested a strange naivety... just my cynical reading of the sub-text leads me to conclude that the only thing that didn't go according to plan from the research commissioners' p.o.v, i suspect, were the findings that
"By far the most frequently cited third-party organisation involved in DLA applications was Jobcentre Plus."

but here we go, i think this is what they wanted...

"There is a case to be made for increasing this level of control by bringing the provision of application forms entirely in-house to DCS, which would permit more initial exploration of a customer’s circumstances and a greater chance of heading off inappropriate claims. Even where requests for forms come from a third-party organisation and it is appropriate for that organisation to be acting on behalf of customers, the sending out of application packs could be agreed only on a specific case-by-case basis allowing discussion of individual particulars, rather than as at present in ‘bulk’ (if requested) and against expected, but as yet unknown, demand."

None of us would even consider helping an application for AA?DLA where it was clearly obvious that the client did not meet the criteria.
However, we are looking at a Benefit which has been shaped, moulded and refined in far more depth by case law than probably any other Benefit.
I cannot see how anyone at the end of a telephone, who is not extremely experienced in dealing with these Benefits, can possibly act as a gate keeper, in effect deciding who gets a form and who doesn't.
As far as new IT is concerned, the new IB test, with it's points system lends itself admirably to DLA, perhaps with a bit of tweaking.

....and an after thought....
"Even where requests for forms come from a third-party organisation and it is appropriate for that organisation to be acting on behalf of customers........." do we take that as meaning we would have to show that it was appropriate for a third party...?