Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: LEAP Administrative PIP exercise

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by nukecad View Post
    I see.

    The DWP have refused to do an any time review.
    You could appeal that decision to refuse a review. But that would be an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal about the refusal to review your case, and if the FTT found in your favour they could only tell the DWP to do a review anyway. Which leaves you back at square one.
    The FTT couldn't change the FTT decision made in 2017.

    However the part about the Upper Tier Tribunal is an interesting indication of how the DWP are seeing things.

    They are saying that you should go to Upper Tier Tribunal to get the 2017 First Tier Tribunal decision overturned. The UTT can overturn the 2017 FTT decision.
    The legal grounds for that would seem to be that the First Tier Tribunal at the time may have been working to rules that were later found to be unlawful by MH/RJ so they may have technically made an error in law.
    I'm not a lawyer so am not sure how/if that would work as the FTT at the time had no way of knowing that MH/JR would come along later.

    That UTT route actually cuts out the steps of a new DWP review and then a possible new appeal to the FTT, jumping those and going straight to UTT about the 2017 FTT ruling.

    I've not heard of anyone going that route but it should work if the UTT accepts (if they can accept) that the FTT did, unknowingly, make an error.

    So as it stands the DWP are simply denying that they have a responsibility to review your case; and have basically said "Tell it to the Judge".

    It will be interesting to see what the UTT make of this. (I assume it is the UTT that you have now appealed to).

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    TBH though this is basically just the DWP being awkward, again - we saw the same with PIP extensions.
    Legally there is nothing whatsoever to stop the DWP reviewing and increasing (or extending) an award that was made at tribunal, that could happen at any time with changes of circumstances and deteriorating conditions, - but the DWP can't decrease (or shorten) a tribunal award.

    When there were complaints about the extensions they did if only for a while extend PIP awards that had been made at tribunal, proving that they can indeed increase/extend awards that were made at tribunal if they want to.

    The DWP are increasingly using 'it was a tribunal award so we can't change it' as an excuse not to do anything.
    It seems to be simply pique on the DWP's part because they don't like how often the courts tell them that they are wrong, but in cases like yours it could also actually be the best way to go.
    It is certainly an error of law because of the RF high court ruling in Dec 2017. It quashed the change the DWP made in March 2017 when they added the 'For reasons other than psychological distress...' to the PIP guidance and in turn led to the DWP having to setup the administrative exercise in 2018 after they decided not to appeal the ruling.

    I'm not sure if it relates to my PIP decision in Aug 2016 but it will have affected my subsequent PIP decision made in April 2017.

    This is a good link to show the timeline https://medium.com/adviser/pip-mobil...y-b035ba711ead
    Last edited by grrrrrowl; 25-04-21 at 13:55.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    375
    having read this thread through - am I right in thinking that if someone has failed to receive the mobility element (due to MH or similar - since the high court ruling), they SHOULD BE included in the LEAP exercise?

    BUT - if they took the initial decision to tribunal - then the dwp are now saying they cannot do anything about it?

    so ALL decisions challenged in tribunal that failed or only got lower level mobility - will NOT BE reassessed by the DWP LEAP exercise.

    - well that is a major 'get-out', isn't it.
    Last edited by walker; 25-04-21 at 22:28.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by walker View Post
    having read this thread through - am I right in thinking that if someone has failed to receive the mobility element (due to MH or similar - since the high court ruling), they SHOULD BE included in the LEAP exercise?

    BUT - if they took the initial decision to tribunal - then the dwp are now saying they cannot do anything about it?

    so ALL decisions challenged in tribunal that failed or only got lower level mobility - will NOT BE reassessed by the DWP LEAP exercise.

    - well that is a major 'get-out', isn't it.
    Yes.... and the best part is, they won't even tell you if you don't ask

  4. #24
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    9,909
    It also goes a bit further than just decisions made by tribunal.

    The LEAP is also only considering DWP made decisions that were made after the dates of the relevant MH/RJ rulings.

    So even if your, possibly incorrect, PIP decision was made by the DWP (not the tribunal) before 28 November 2016 (for the MH ruling) it will not be automatically included in the LEAP and you have to ask the DWP yourself to look at it again.
    Of course you have to know about the LEAP and the relevant dates before you would even think of doing it.
    https://youreable.livingmadeeasy.org...l=1#post174745

    That's where grrrrowl started, asking the DWP for a review because of the dates.
    I don't know everything. - But I'm good at searching for, and finding, stuff.

    Migration from ESA to Universal Credit- Click here for information.

  5. #25
    It turns out that appealing to the UTT means I have to ask the judge rather than go through the regular appeals process online. So this morning I've sent the following email (posting here as it may help others in my situation):-

    I am writing to request permission to appeal to the Upper Tier Tribunal regarding the First Tier Tribunal decision on 27/06/17 regarding my PIP decision of 06/04/17. I understand this request is out of time but I put forward the reason for my request and mitigating circumstances in this email.

    Timeline

    1. 28th Nov 2016 - MH UTT ruling
    2. 9th Mar 2017 – RJ UTT ruling
    3. 16th Mar – DWP amendments to PIP descriptors for planning and following a journey (Addition of ‘For reasons other than psychological distress’ to descriptors that would have been relevant to me)
    4. 6th Apr – DWP decision awarding me 0 points in total for PIP
    5. 27th Jun – Tribunal award of 15 points for daily living and 4 for mobility
    6. 21st Dec – RF High Court ruling quashing the amendments made by the DWP on 16th March
    7. 30th Jan 2018 – DWP confirmed that they would be reviewing anyone affected by the RF ruling
    8. 1st Jun – LEAP administrative exercise begins
    9. Jun 2018 – Mar 2020 – Phone calls to PIP phonelines asking for update every few months. On each occasion I was told the exercise would take around 2 years and I could be reviewed at any point during this time but told that my case had been marked for the LEAP team’s attention.
    10. Mar 2020 – I had contacted my MP to enquire what was happening with regards to my case being reviewed. I had an email reply stating that a request had been put forward for an immediate (any time) review.
    11. Mar – Oct 2020 – LEAP administrative exercise suspended due to COVID-19 pandemic
    12. Oct 2020 – Mar 2021 – Phoned PIP several times and was told my case was still down for immediate review.
    13. Mar 2021 – Told by a member of LEAP team that due to a change in policy in Jan 2021, cases that had been awarded by tribunal would not be looked at for the LEAP administrative exercise
    14. 14th Apr – Received a letter confirming that the DWP would not be reviewing my case with regards to the MH and RJ rulings and was told my only course of action would be to appeal to UTT (photo of letter attached).

    Due to the amendments made by the DWP in Mar 2017 (3), my PIP decision in April 2017 (4) and my tribunal hearing in June 2017 (5) did not take into account the UTT rulings (1, 2), namely the MH ruling. The public announcement (7) gave no indication that I would not be included in the LEAP administrative exercise and in fact I was told on many occasions in the following 3 years that my case had been marked for attention. My MP had requested an immediate review (10) but this was not done due to the pandemic and then the claimed policy change (13). I was not told of this change until I had contacted DWP myself (13) and on many occasions in the preceding 3 years had been reassured my case was due to be reviewed.

    For these reasons I have effectively been mislead since the RF ruling and even before the claimed policy change in Jan 2021, my request for immediate review was not done in a timely manner and has now been refused by the DWP. I have suffered from mental health problems since 2008 and my problems have remained largely the same from then until now and so these UTT rulings affect me directly (and since the RF ruling I have been awarded standard rate mobility at my last tribunal in 2019). My tribunal hearing in June 2017 (through no fault of the panel) was found to be discriminatory by the RF High Court ruling and for that reason I believe an error of law has occurred and I request permission to appeal to the Upper Tier Tribunal (statement of reasons had already been requested by DWP in 2017).

  6. #26
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    9,909
    A good summary of what is a complicated situation. Hopefully the Judge will also like it.

    States the facts as you see them, without any rambling or prevarication - which is exactly what is needed.

    Calmly accuses the DWP of negilgence and deliberate misinformation without any name calling.

    Points out that since RF you have now been awarded what you believe you should have been given in 2016/2017.
    My thought is that might have been better starting a paragraph of it's own for emphasis. I think I'd have worded it just the same but started a new paragraph at "Since the RF ruling ...".

    Although there is always going to be a slight question of if any deterioration of condition may be responsible for that 2019 decision rather than the judgement(s).
    That's what I expect the DWP will argue if/when it gets to UTT. (And if they bother to argue at all).

    I particularly like "(through no fault of the panel)" which shows that although you believe the FTT made an error of law you accept that it was reasonable at the time and you are not blaming them.

    PS. If you are lucky then the DWP will now see that you are serious with going to UTT and may cave in and make a revision, or an 'offer', before it gets that far.
    Remember that a UTT ruling becomes case law; which could possibly then require them to look again at all the affected PIP awards made at FTT.
    They would no doubt want to avoid that possibility.
    Last edited by nukecad; 26-04-21 at 11:32.
    I don't know everything. - But I'm good at searching for, and finding, stuff.

    Migration from ESA to Universal Credit- Click here for information.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by nukecad View Post
    A good summary of what is a complicated situation. Hopefully the Judge will also like it.

    States the facts as you see them, without any rambling or prevarication - which is exactly what is needed.

    Calmly accuses the DWP of negilgence and deliberate misinformation without any name calling.

    Points out that since RF you have now been awarded what you believe you should have been given in 2016/2017.
    My thought is that might have been better starting a paragraph of it's own for emphasis. I think I'd have worded it just the same but started a new paragraph at "Since the RF ruling ...".

    Although there is always going to be a slight question of if any deterioration of condition may be responsible for that 2019 decision rather than the judgement(s).
    That's what I expect the DWP will argue if/when it gets to UTT. (And if they bother to argue at all).

    I particularly like "(through no fault of the panel)" which shows that although you believe the FTT made an error of law you accept that it was reasonable at the time and you are not blaming them.

    PS. If you are lucky then the DWP will now see that you are serious with going to UTT and may cave in and make a revision, or an 'offer', before it gets that far.
    Remember that a UTT ruling becomes case law; which could possibly then require them to look again at all the affected PIP awards made at FTT.
    They would no doubt want to avoid that possibility.
    Thanks for the comments Nukecad.

    Tbh they should be reviewing cases like mine anyway or at least should have made it clear that tribunal awards wouldn't be reviewed. I've still not seen any evidence of this policy change so that's why I kept writing 'claimed change'.

    Regarding the question of deterioration, I accept that may well be looked at but to do that, my case needs to be reviewed so it's fine by me! Whatever I was or wasn't awarded in 2019 will never have any official bearing on this anyway, I just included it because it puts it in their mind.

    Anyway, will hopefully update as this progresses to whatever end.
    Last edited by grrrrrowl; 26-04-21 at 12:21.

  8. #28
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    9,909
    Just to note that Ryan Bradshaw of Leigh Day has just (about 90 mins ago) made a new post in that rightsnet thread:
    https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/...d/17103/#81790

    At the minute I am gathering ammo to go to the DWP and try to get to the bottom of what this LEAP review has actually consisted of.

    We think that any challenge is best coming from an organisation rather than an individual but we may need to re-visit this or even gather case studies. There is something very wrong going on here that much is apparent.
    So Leigh Day are still looking into issues with the LEAP. (Or at least Ryan Bradshaw is).
    Maybe the person you spoke to last week 'declined to help' simply they aren't gathering cases at the moment, or didn't know that they still had an interest?

    Perhaps it would be worth contacting Ryan directly, as you've already applied to a judge for an individual appeal I suspect that he will probably be interested.
    I don't know everything. - But I'm good at searching for, and finding, stuff.

    Migration from ESA to Universal Credit- Click here for information.

  9. #29
    I've popped him an email but I think he is looking at cases where they have been reviewed but not resulted in an increased award.

  10. #30
    Senior Member nukecad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    West Cumbria (Lake District)
    Posts
    9,909
    You can only see how he replies.
    I don't know everything. - But I'm good at searching for, and finding, stuff.

    Migration from ESA to Universal Credit- Click here for information.

Similar Threads

  1. Outdoor exercise to get some sun
    By Lighttouch in forum Health - help & advice on health issues for disabled people
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 21-07-15, 15:03
  2. What physical exercise do you like doing '?
    By Lighttouch in forum Health - help & advice on health issues for disabled people
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 29-10-14, 21:16

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •