All assistance gratefully recieved on this one, please (thanks!).
Client claimed DLA in Nov 03, refused, appealed, won appeal in Aug 04 (LRM LRC mental health grounds) - decision 12 months from Nov 03. Renewal form completed in Oct/Nov 04, section one recieved by DBU, acknowledged that Section 2 had gone for a walk end jan 05. Copy forwarded. Decision Mar 5th 05 - refused both components. Written Decision requested - reason includes the line "We do not agree with the previous decision" (previous decision being Tribunal decision in Aug 04. No full decision issued so no reasons. No indication that DWP not happy with Tribunal decision before now). What's the point of an appeal if the Dept is going to say they disagree with it but not challenge it ? And then rely on the fact that they disagree with a Tribunal decision as evidence for refusing a renewal ? The refusal is for the same reasons they refused in Nov 03 which we managed to overturn on Appeal in Aug 04 and now they are using the same reasons and saying they disagree with the Tribunal ? Excuse Me ?

Fully agree with you. For the DBU to offer this as a reason without given an explanation or, as you point out not, not challenging the 2004 tribunal decision seems daft. If they have little more to offer than that and you can obtain medical or other professional support for this appeal, I would have thought you would have a strong case.

is it just me, or does the explanation given show a lack of respect for the legal or judicial process? i think you can have a great deal of fun assisting your client draft a letter of appeal, so long as you imagine that the appeals officer addressing the points of your appeal, and imagine a presenting officer attending, and explaining the DWP's position to the tribunal...

expect the standard misinterpretation of the commissioner's decision they think gives the decision-maker carte blanche, and consider yourself lucky if they just ignore your grounds, rather than misrepresent them stupid.

Hi jj, had a vaguely similar issue myself recently where got further (unexpected, but very supportive) medical evidence post revision pre tribunal hearing. Client with mental health problems very nervous about hearing. DWP refused even to consider reconsidering it.

Both mine and yours leave vulnerable clients facing tribunals they shouldn't have to face. (My client is really unhappy about the prospect)

I thought of a different approach. I sent my letters to DWP and the FME to TAS and explained that I thought my client had been 'robbed' (I can't think of the nice way I said this) of a lower tier of adjudication which should have prevented an appeal having to go ahead, through no fault of my client. I requested the then oral hearing be changed to a paper hearing and requested that if the tribunal really feels they can't allow appeal on basis of paper evidence then adjourn for an oral hearing. Effectively asking a paper hearing to replace the 'reconsideration' stage not properly addressed by the DWP.

Potentially it adds time if they do adjourn and is a nightmare if they just dismiss appeal, but when you've done everything in _your_ power to mitigate costs to the state of administering a challenge to a decision they can't kick you in the head if it costs more because of a sluggish DWP not reading words properly or applying their own procedures.

In your case it's a much stronger case to do anyway. Surely any chair is going to be appalled at the behaviour of the DWP on this one. If you can get FME to show continuance of condition and prognosis then you could also very reasonably ask for a much longer award as well and nail it all without the client having to go back so soon nor yet for ages after.

Hi Peter

What you have described is very concerning, particularly as this practice seems to be something of a trend. I'm currently dealing with 2 cases (and a third very similar), where exactly the same thing happened i.e. original claim unsucessful, benefit awarded by tribunal, then when claim renewed award withdrawn. In both of my cases the renewal forms were well completed and adequately supported their current award (In fact the GP completed back of Section 2 on one of them with very supportive statement). No further medical evidence was obtained.

I'm awaiting appeal papers so will be interested to see the reasoning given in the DMs submission. It's something at least that they are being up front about why they have withdrawn your client's benefit, becuase that will enable you to address the issue directly with the tribunal. With regard to the question of the legality of what they've done, did they try to challenge the last tribunal decision i.e. did they even request full statement? If they didn't then this infers that they did agreed with it. However I think there is caselaw which allows a DM to make a different decision from another DM on an earlier claim where the facts remain the same. So it could be a similar situation here, though you could argue that if DM had reason to disagree with tribunal decision then they should have sought further evidence. Did they do this?

I agree totally with all the sentiments expressed by others on this. It makes you wonder if this is the reason why so few DLA/AA tribunal decisions are challenged by the DWP, because they think sod it we'll just remove the benefit when it comes up for renewal. It's very unfair on the claimant because it effectively means that they have to go through the appeal process not once but twice, or more. There will be some people who just can't face the prospect of another tribunal, so will not bother.

Sorry Robswad, your name is not Peter! I'd previously been reading Peter Turville's posting on texting...

And I called him jj. Please don't have an identity crisis Robin!

All of this comes back (to me, anyway) to the problem of tribunals giving too short awards. You'd expect it from the DWP but frankly in my experience the DWP are more generous on times of awards than the tribunals.

There are some succinct decisions on award lengths that are in a previous discussion, that you may care to put into your pot.

(Which I cannot find the search old forums facility does not seem to be working or I can't operate it)

Found them on bits of real paper - CDLA/3831/2002 and CDLA/2337/1999, do let me know if you can't find them.

Maybe this is one to investigate via your MP and Parliamentary Ombudsman. Clearly they are not following the correct proceedures therefore maladministration.