Situation is: Client scores 43 points in July 2003 PCA. In June 2005 he has a painful medical and scores zero. Comes to us for help. I send him to an orthopaedic triage doctor for another painful assessment, scores 25 points and doctor (who saw him November 2003) says has had no relevant changes. Also pursue complaint about June 2005 medical.
Complaint upheld. Send copy of complaint upheldment, copy of new assessment to DWP who revise decision in client's favour, BUT say he needs a NEW examination. Put in appeal against decision, and now DWP are 'looking at whether client will need another examination'. They are also (seemingly effectively) saying that original decision on supersession of previous award was not properly effective because of duff IB85 and so decision effectively ceases to exist so no possible appeal.
This rather tickles me to a _very_ small extent. The logical outcome of the 'non-signed' IB85 argument was that the there were no grounds to supersede and so supersession not effective. But the outcome of that could only ever be that the poor claimant was posted off to another examination.
If this does end up in appeal I don't really see that there's anything before the tribunal (unless they want to be nasty and reinstate the original decision, which is a real danger) if they accept DWP's findings; the date of when to request that a claimant is reassessed is surely solely a matter for the DWP? Or is it?
Thoughts on this situation welcomed - there I was over the moon I'd finally got a complaint upheld. Poisoned chalices everyhwhere aren't there?
|