Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
PIP Decision
Current appeal in respect of a decision to refuse PIP. original awarded 6 points in line with HCP recommendations
MR lodged and MRN comes back with 0 points all round with no justification. Which being generous is likely incompetence rather than a deliberate act
My understanding is that the appeal is against the original decision so should i proceed on the basis that the original 6 points are accepted and just submit on the descriptors which were not awarded notwithstanding that of course a tribunal could open the whole case up
The tribunal’s decision will be on the balance of facts, and it is entirely open to DWP to argue that their original decision (well, only score of points in this case) was incorrect and argue fewer points should be awarded. This could be very relevant in case your arguments only support an additional 2-7 points (or more for an enhanced award).
Unless DWP changes their standpoint from MR to their appeal response, this is something you will have to address. I would proceed on the basis that they will maintain their MR position.
DWP will of course in that situation argue against the views of their own/contracted HCPs, so it should be fairly easy to persuade the tribunal to go the other way.
Unless DWP posits some persuasive arguments why the HCP report should carry less weight, the 6 points should come easy, and you can devote your focus to the remaining 2+ points needed for an award.
I think the advice on arguments to make to a tribunal is the same regardless but I am not clear in my own mind as to whether, when we are not happy with the result of the MR, the decision appealed against is the MR decision or the original decision. When we complete the appeal form we provide the MR and the rules are those of appeals generally I.e. within 1 or 13 months following the MR . On the occasions when things are changed favourably for the claimant, isn’t the MR then the decision that we accept? So it seems to me the MR is a new decision. But on the other hand it is not a new decision requiring you to go through the process of a new MR before appeal is possible or you would be stuck in an endless loop. I’m sure there’s someone there who can clarify?
I think the advice on arguments to make to a tribunal is the same regardless but I am not clear in my own mind as to whether, when we are not happy with the result of the MR, the decision appealed against is the MR decision or the original decision. When we complete the appeal form we provide the MR and the rules are those of appeals generally I.e. within 1 or 13 months following the MR . On the occasions when things are changed favourably for the claimant, isn’t the MR then the decision that we accept? So it seems to me the MR is a new decision. But on the other hand it is not a new decision requiring you to go through the process of a new MR before appeal is possible or you would be stuck in an endless loop. I’m sure there’s someone there who can clarify?
Mandatory reconsideration refers to the process by which the claimant is required to request revision of the decision before appealing. This will result in the DWP either revising the original decision or refusing to do so.
The nature of a revision is that it does not constitute a new decision and instead operates as an updated version of the old decision. So your appeal is strictly against the original decision, as revised e.g. “the decision of 21 April 2021, as revised on 15 November 2021”. See R(IB)2/04 on this (and many of the other building blocks of the current system).
Once the DWP has revised a decision on the claimant’s application, the requirements of reg 7 D&A are met and you are entitled to bring an appeal against the original decision.
Note that, for the purposes of the case law relating to the fairness or otherwise of tribunals taking awards away, it would not make any difference whether the points were awarded in the first instance or on revision, providing they were part of the operative decision when the case reached the tribunal.
I think the advice on arguments to make to a tribunal is the same regardless but I am not clear in my own mind as to whether, when we are not happy with the result of the MR, the decision appealed against is the MR decision or the original decision. When we complete the appeal form we provide the MR and the rules are those of appeals generally I.e. within 1 or 13 months following the MR . On the occasions when things are changed favourably for the claimant, isn’t the MR then the decision that we accept? So it seems to me the MR is a new decision. But on the other hand it is not a new decision requiring you to go through the process of a new MR before appeal is possible or you would be stuck in an endless loop. I’m sure there’s someone there who can clarify?
Mandatory reconsideration refers to the process by which the claimant is required to request revision of the decision before appealing. This will result in the DWP either revising the original decision or refusing to do so.
The nature of a revision is that it does not constitute a new decision and instead operates as an updated version of the old decision. So your appeal is strictly against the original decision, as revised e.g. “the decision of 21 April 2021, as revised on 15 November 2021”. See R(IB)2/04 on this (and many of the other building blocks of the current system).
Once the DWP has revised a decision on the claimant’s application, the requirements of reg 7 D&A are met and you are entitled to bring an appeal against the original decision.
Note that, for the purposes of the case law relating to the fairness or otherwise of tribunals taking awards away, it would not make any difference whether the points were awarded in the first instance or on revision, providing they were part of the operative decision when the case reached the tribunal.
That’s what I was looking for confirmation of- thanks Elliot
Thanks Elliot. That’s really clarified something I’ve always been hazy about. Ruth