Decision before tribunal is that the claimant is not entitled to DLA as she is not virtually unable to walk. This decision follows a supersession of an original award of 2005 taking effect from February 2007. As there has been a failure to disclose the relevant change of circumstances (CoCs) that the claimant could now walk there is a recoverable overpayment from the claimant of DLA amounting to £1500.
My submission to the tribunal was that there had not been a CoCs as the claimant's condition is now, was at the time of the supersession and has been since the date of the award in 2005 the same with NO changes.
The tribunal chair advised me that if the tribunal found that there was no entitlement to DLA and that they agrreed with my submission on CoCs, then it must stand the the claimant should not have been awarded in 2005. Should that be the case, the tribunal would then empower itself to revise the 2005 decision and this would mean that the recoverable overpayment would be considerably more that it stands to be now. At that suggestion I asked under what authority the tribunal would rely on to embark upon such a revision. The chair spoke of a 2005 decision being given in ignorance of - or as a mistake of a material fact. I said that even though I did not agree that either of those was appropriate to this case, I was aware of that possibility. I added that the only issues before the tribunal are whether, at the date of supersession, did the appellant satisfy the conditions of entitlement for DLA and if she didn't, had she failed to declare a CoCs; and nothing more. There was no question before them about entitlenment at 2005.
I have looked at the legislation about this but I cannot find the authority of which the chair spoke at the appeal. I have the right to revision regs but not the regs authrorising a tribunal to revise a decision not before it.
Any ideas please?
Thank you.
|