Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
DWP ‘offers to settle’
forum member
Zacchaeus 2000 Trust (Z2K)
Total Posts: 25
Joined: 28 September 2016
Kate Osamor MP recently tabled some Parliamentary Questions about people being contacted by the DWP after lodging a Social Security appeal with an ‘offer to settle’, which if accepted, would result in their appeal being lapsed:
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-03-18/171672
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-03-18/171673
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-03-18/171674
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-03-18/171675
Following these questions, guidance of these offers has been placed in the House of Commons library:
https://depositedpapers.parliament.uk/depositedpaper/2283137/files
At Z2K, we know people are rarely informed of their appeal rights when provided with one of these offers (contrary to P.5 of the first document), and peoples’ formal representatives are rarely the people contacted first about these offers (contrary to P.1 of the second document).
Any other feedback on where this guidance isn’t being implemented would be greatly appreciated, as we are keen to push on this further.
Thank you
forum member
Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service
Total Posts: 3138
Joined: 17 June 2010
All of it really. Appeal rights rarely mentioned and when they are it is incomplete i.e. doesn’t mention no need for a further MR; doesn’t mention you can accept the offer and then appeal further. Also no explanation ever given about the difference between what happens at the end of the award when awarded on offer and when awarded by a tribunal. Creates massive issues further down the line.
I find that they either offer the correct award or the correct award length or neither… but never the correct award and length. Have never yet had that happen. Will be amused if others have. Equally I have never had an offer accepted; gone to further appeal and failed to gain exactly what I thought was missing. I am either a genius or we are in the realms of the obvious and DWP keep missing it. Particular grievance of mine around award lengths where, funnily enough, guidance is also consistently disregarded aside from the line about making the shortest award possible. Exactly how many people who have been blind from birth or who have lifelong or degenerative conditions should get a time limited award? The correct answer would be none. And yet…
Easy to forget also that this really ought to be something addressed at the review point immediately following appeal. Doing it in the week leading up to the tribunal is administratively incompetent; wholly unhelpful and coercive.
Any other feedback on where this guidance isn’t being implemented would be greatly appreciated, as we are keen to push on this further.
Since Christmas I have had 6 cases where I have entered the appeal with myself as representative and the appeal has been lapsed by the DWP. Today was the first time I received contact from the DWP and that was because they could not get hold of the client (he had turned his phone off as they had messaged to say they would be phoning him!) Pleased for this client as after an initial 0 points for DL and mob, SR DL (11 points) after MR he now rightfully has ER DL and SR Mob.
I certainly think that as we are noted as representative then the initial contact should be with ourselves rather than the client. I actually pre-warn clients now regarding the potential for a call from DWP due to the number of cases that we are seeing now being changed upon submission of the appeal.
forum member
Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service
Total Posts: 3138
Joined: 17 June 2010
Good point. It has become part of the WR armoury to pre-arm appellants with the fact that an offer may happen and what they should do when it does. It’s so routine that I didn’t even think about the fact I do it all the time until then.
Well I’ve just had contact from 2 more clients today, to advise that the DWP have contacted them direct and changed/made PIP award and lapsed the appeal without any contact with me so it certainly shows that DWP are disregarding the best practice memorandum for lapsing appeals!
forum member
The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale
Total Posts: 1366
Joined: 22 July 2013
I was going to say that it seems to be working roughly as it should do here, PIP usually contacting me, if not before the claimant at least within a few minutes of ringing them and generally being open to negotiation. However, one yesterday where they rang a woman with suspected autism and learning difficulties who can’t read and write. She asked them to ring me, they didn’t. They have lapsed the appeal this morning and the claimant has no idea what she has been offered.
Edit
An annoying thing with these cases is that when you try to resubmit the appeal online it gets to the end and then says that you can’t submit it as an appeal has already been made against a MR on that date, so you have to fillout the paper appeal (which is a particular pain when you can’t see claimants face to face).
forum member
Citizens Advice Bridport & District
Total Posts: 1052
Joined: 9 January 2017
Same down here on the Jurassic coast, just had yet another.
As for adherence to the ‘Best practice Memorandum issued to all decision-making staff involved in appeals
lapsing’. As per usual the ‘Don’ts’ were adhered too!!!!!!! Attached the Memo for convenience.
Don’ts
Don’t allow the customer to believe they are obligated to accept the lapse if it is
not entirely resolving their dispute, they should not feel pressured to accept
under any circumstances.
Don’t lapse an appeal where there is a formal representative and you haven’t
discussed the lapse decision with them. Even if the customer is happy, their
representative must agree.
File Attachments
- Best_practice_Memorandum_for_staff_involved_in_appeals_lapsing_(1).pdf (File Size: 420KB - Downloads: 1674)
Request from Advicenow and Public Law Project:
Advicenow and Public Law Project would urgently like to hear from you if any of your clients have been offered an improved PIP award over the telephone (after they have lodged an appeal) since September 2020.
We are particularly keen to know if it was explained to your client that they could still appeal the new award. Please email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) if you have information to share.
We are working to challenge this DWP practice via judicial review.
I do think we ought to be careful about this. Whilst there are obviously examples of very poor practice which is already in breach of the guidance, discussions on this issue never seem to reflect the fact that, in law, a decision cannot be favourably revised without lapsing the appeal. This means that the only options for the DWP are to revise the decision irrespective of the claimant’s wishes or to seek the claimant’s agreement before doing so. Neither is really an entirely satisfactory answer, but asking a claimant before doing something which affects their interests does not seem to be an inherently objectionable way of going about it.
Perhaps a High Court Judge might be persuaded to say that, as a matter of law, if DWP think a decision is wrong they must revise it irrespective of anything else. All this will mean is instead of getting a phonecall asking you whether it is going to be acceptable to revise the decision and lapse the appeal to award you SRM for three years, you will just get a letter in the post telling you that this is what has happened and that if you aren’t happy about it, it’s on you to put in a new appeal and go to the back of the queue. I am not sure that this is really a desirable goal.
I think that what we ought to be pressing for is for legislative change so that under certain circumstances a favourable revision would not lapse the related appeal. That way it would open the door to DWP making partial concessions and putting them into payment without the consequence of ending the appeal and requiring the claimant to start over. It is hard to see what principled objection could be made to that.
It appears that PLP have succeeded in some sort of JR in relation to this issue.
According to the final paragraph:
“The DWP, which was ordered to pay 90% of the costs of the case, has agreed to issue guidance to officials making it clear they should not make so-called “partial lapse” awards similar to that made to K. Staff involved in these cases will be given mandatory retraining.”
I would be interested if anybody can decipher what that paragraph is supposed to mean.
forum member
Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service
Total Posts: 3138
Joined: 17 June 2010
Damn good question Elliot. I’d like to think it refers to the pressure element rather than the offers themselves. Not really clear until we hear from our friends at PLP.
Here’s PLP’s press release on the case - it gives a link to the Consent Order which outlines the changes the DWP has agreed to in conceding the case -
Interesting, thanks Ros.
It’s not wholly clear what exactly was being challenged, or whether PLP are claiming responsibility for the production of last year’s “Best Practice Memorandum” referred to above, but it seems that the position is that DWP will continue with their policy of revising decisions only where the claimant is agreeable but that this will be subject to the BPM and other guidance including the requirement to contact reps etc.
I read this point -
The further amendment of her BPM to make clear that, where a benefit claimant indicates a wish to appeal any such revised decision, that should not prevent the making of the revision and consequential lapsing of the appeal.
- as meaning that, where the claimant isn’t happy with the offer and says they will continue the appeal, DWP should still make the revised decision. So the money goes up and the claimant can freshly appeal.
forum member
Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool
Total Posts: 3139
Joined: 16 June 2010
Whatever the merits/demerits in individual cases, this is the kind of entirely predictable unholy mess we end up with when the DWP starts playing fast and loose with the statute for the sake of its own administrative convenience, however they dress it up.
[ Edited: 14 Jul 2021 at 06:50 pm by nevip ]forum member
Welfare rights advisor - CPAG, London
Total Posts: 780
Joined: 16 June 2010
The Order of the Court is here: https://publiclawproject.org.uk/content/uploads/2021/07/CO042632020-consent-order.pdf
I think the key point is that ADM will be changed and this plus the revised BPM now make it clear that:
1. Claimant must be told of their right to appeal any revised decision before they are asked whether they want the revision.
2. DM must still revise the decision if the claimant asks them to even where the claimant makes it clear they will appeal.
Previously the ADM instructed the DM never to revise if the claimant indicated they were going to appeal.
For advisers acting in cases where the claimant has not accepted a proposed revision but has elected for their appeal to continue then see the attached decision of Judge Wright in DO v SSWP (sorry not updated our testcase page with this as yet). Effectively the FTT should treat the offered decision as a starting point and FTT will need to consider whether to give warning and possibly adjournment if it starts to think that the claimant should have less than was offered.
I think the position arrived at in the JR probably correct- R(IS)15/04 reasoning works on basis claimant is entitled to apply for any sort of revision and if grounds made out then SSWP obliged to revise. A fully advised claimant who elects not to accept a revision has not applied for one and so the SSWP duty to revise does not arise.
[ Edited: 14 Jul 2021 at 07:13 pm by Martin Williams ]File Attachments
- DO-v-SSWP-[2021]-UKUT-161-(AAC).pdf (File Size: 375KB - Downloads: 1428)