Help! I have a client who I have been working with for the last 2 years, he has claimed IB/DLA as a young person due to learning difficulties. At the start of the summer this year he was able to secure his first ever full time job. As part of his ongoing support I referred him to Social Services who are the local provider of Workstep. The workstep adviser took responsibility for completing his Tax Credit Application and notifying DWP of the client's desire to be treated as a "welfare to work beneficiary", and hence be able to return to the long term rate of IB within a 52 week linking period. Now the job has come to an end (as it was only seasonal) he has reclaimed IB, to be told that he has been awarded the short term rate.
I have spoken to the IB section, who have requested the relevant paperwork from the central file. Call me an old cynic, but if the file comes back with no record of a letter from Social Services, obviously my client is at a significant financial loss through no fault of his own. Does he have any right of appeal, or is it a case of going down the rather difficult route of a compensation against social services? This may be difficult to prove as the member of staff has now left.

Steve
As you didn't deal with the ending of the last IB claim- here's some questions to ask/consider-
When the last claim ended-
1)Was a 'final' sick note issued by the GP and sent to JCP?
2)Was a form BF220A issued to the customer to ask about any return to work-and was it returned to JCP?
3)Was the customer being paid IB/IBY at the higher or long term rate?
4)Was a form BF220B issued to the customer to tell him he had a 52 week link?

If all the above apply he should be entitled to a 52 week link and go back on to the same benefit rate he left. However, if the last claim was not closed down correctly,the 52 week link may have been missed on the new claim-hence the lower rate now.

Also, check to see if it was only the DLA Unit that was told that he had started some work.

Just a reminder to all, from 9/10/06 there now is a 104 week link.

Thanks Mick.
In the end panic over, it appears that the DWP's high tech computer system couldn't cope with his claim, and has been transferred to clerical, consequently the 52 week tracking was missed due to human error.
So everybody happy now!

Steve
Glad that claim is now sorted. However, no reason for the claim to be clerical, it just needs to be deleted from the incap system and rebuilt to show the correct 52/104 week link.

Would he not have 104 weeks linking anyways due to the WTC?

If all the conditions for WTC were met, then yes, the 2 YEARS linking rule should apply.
To avoid confusion (which is always handy), the WTC linking is known as '2 YEARS', and the new IB/IBY/SDA 'Welfare to Work' linking rule is now called '104 weeks'.
In this case, it appears that the customer was fortunate to be able to use either 'link' to go back onto the correct level of benefit.