DLA some movement

[barebackrider]

Absolutely right.

In the past I have contacted various news channels, media, and social networking forums. My daughter, who has a Masters in European Sociology has tried to muster up as much support as possible with contacts in the UK (she lives here in France with her French husband) and nobody wanted to know. Albeit, we read headline stories of benefit cheats and immigrants living in million pound accomodation, but it's history within the same day. As already said, politicians claim their expenses down to the last loo roll, and hey ho, its news headlines for five minutes.

People claiming entitlements that are rightfully and legally theirs, which they have been deliberately deprived and discriminated from, then judicially corrected and denial redeemed, is far from a headliner.. I would think that even if it made the small print, there would be some tutting and head shaking , but at the liberties taken against the vulnerable: the sick, elderly and disabled, no matter what their age or where they have chosen to live. That is exactly why people respond generously to appeals.

There is a politician in all of us.

 

[Russethouse]

[quote user="PaysansG"][quote user="Russethouse"]

Until the money is actuall paid !!!

[/quote]

It is already being paid [:)] and in terms of the billions squandered on bailing out City *ankers the money owed in disability benefits is very small change.

I appreciate all of your arguments - nothing like a good debate - but I for one am heading out of here now... au revoir [kiss]

[/quote]

 From what's above I don't think you do - I'm not debating anything, all I'm saying that one of the reason you are giving the run around may be because of the fear of poor publicity settling might lead to.. thats all.

On the other hand you could always 'market'  the view the Labour putting right a Tory wrong might score some brownie points [:)]

[ali-cat]

The only brownie points for the government would be to comply fully with the ECJ judgement thereby avoiding the potentially hefty fines that can be imposed for continued non-compliance which would more than likely exceed the cost of benefits to be paid.

Ali cat had the good fortune (sic) to have had her claim dealt with under the appeals procedures rather than treated as a new claim. Under these procedures a never ending series of tribunals has been arranged, cancelled, arranged, cancelled where the attendees,  including legally qualified members,  were to consider her claim under the current (Northern Ireland) social security legislation which refers to the need to be UK resident.  The department's administrative procedures, decision making and appeals procedures must all operate under the current (now illegal) domestic legislation.  To comply fully with the ECJ judgement the government must ensure that the relevant legislation (for NI, England and Wales, and Scotland) is amended as with any adminstrative procedures etc flowing from this legislation.  I suspect any delays have more to do with this workload than any attempts to avoid potential political embarassment.

EU citizens do of course have the right and ability to bring the UK's continued breach of EU law to the Commission's attention.

Mr Cat

 

 

 

[dragonrouge]

Dear Russethouse I have a considerable interest in this subject area being the husband of someone who has suffered for over 40 years with let us say one of the top 30 illnesses so recognised by the French as well as being a lawyer and appearing many times in front of these so-called Tribunals.

I argued my wife's case appealed and won at Tribunal.  However our French dream was not based upon having  this extra 'change' in our back pocket it would  happen if DLA had not been granted.

My position in all of this is very simple the system is the pits the people in Blackpool are civil servants who are out of their depths and the Minister responsible does not know his subject.

My grandfather was one of the founders of the original labour party and my late father waited outsides the gates of the pits to collect contributions and he lived through the early 1900's when Churchill sent the army into South Wales and shot miners.  I lived through the miners strike of 84/85 so you would have some idea of my background.  I believe in the system which probably although I cannot tell is being worked DLA wise by some people but although that brings a bad taste to one's mouth it is for others to police the system.

What I do say is that the 2007 judgment found against HMG and if you read the judgment as an ordinary level headed individual the judgment says in common parlance to HMG to pay up.

I do not think that speculation as to why they are no so doing helps and helps in any way whatsoever.  If you do not have background information and can prove what you assert then stay well away (please)

You can imagine it is a highly charged area so deviations from the norm add nothing.

er

 

 

 

[cooperlola]

It's deja vu all over again. When we were going through the CMU issue, there were always those who wanted to divert the information threads with their pet theories and opinions as to why we did/did not deserve it.  There is surely a place for both but, for the sake of those who are being kicked while they are already down, is it unreasonable to expect that these places might be kept seperate?

[Russethouse]

 I give up - all I am saying is that it is quite possible that this government, who are not exactly leaping about joy at paying these benefits, are dragging their feet and are going to make things as difficult as possible, for possibly political ends and because of the negative comments it will bring in the UK press.

I'm not saying you deserve it or you do not, one way or the other, but one thing it proves to me is that some of you have little comprehension of the public mood in the UK,  or the depth of feeling toward this government and their actions. C'est la vie 

 

[Benjamin]

I don't think there are many people who are missing the point of what you are trying to say. All that is being said is if you wish to start commenting on what the current or future UK Government may or may not do to court popular favour with UK voters then surely it would be a good idea to start a thread specifically on that thread.

This thread is some 39 pages and 20 months on and has managed to stay fairly on topic so far. Can me please keep it that way?

[Russethouse]

It is !

I'm not debating whether the government is right, wrong, red or blue nor if a goverment of any other hue would be different. It isn't a political judgement or comment - because I guess any government in this position would do the same. All I'm saying is why not step back and look at the wider picture and take something other than your own immediate cause into account.

End of 

[ali-cat]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

It is !

I'm not debating whether the government is right, wrong, red or blue nor if a goverment of any other hue would be different. It isn't a political judgement or comment - because I guess any government in this position would do the same. All I'm saying is why not step back and look at the wider picture and take something other than your own immediate cause into account.

End of 

[/quote]

Because that's what this thread is about!!!!!

People sharing their on-going experiences in dealing with their DLA claims.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Nobody on this particular thread cares who is responsible for the hold up or why there are problems, it's only about keeping each other informed about progress & passing on as much information, to each other, as possible.

 

 

[Tony F Dordogne]

Well, the weather here has been miserable all day, so in keeping with the general grey and overcast view of 24, I've filled in the form, amended to reflect my ststus as a reclaimant, quoted the various sources, told them their way of seeing the whole thing seemed illogical, used the clear language argument, sealed the envelope and, together with the form, both letter and form are now in the hands of La Poste!

Watch this space :)

[barebackrider]

with regards and best wishes to all who are waiting for their reinstatement.

BBR

[woolybanana]

which writer?

 

[barebackrider]

 It is unusually quiet here....I have been eagerly waiting by the gate every day for postman pat....

 

[Gardian]

I religiously read every post to this thread and have been wondering ....................... do we actually have any evidence that there is any intention to refuse claims across the board?  

Some anecdotal stuff, and of course (for one reason or another) some claims might well be refused.  But is it just possible that the delays are nothing more than the slow movement of the civil service and hopeless communication?

I'll happily stand corrected, but has anybody actually reported a "We're not going to backdate your DLA, nor even reinstate it" type communication?

Just a thought.

[Tony F Dordogne]

Sent my second form back a couple of weeks ago and today I received an email as follows:

Good morning.

Thank you for returning the enquiry form. In order that we can deal with your enquiry regarding the reinstatement of you Disability Living Allowance please state whether you have been resident in the u.k 26 out of 52 weeks for any period from 25/04/2007 which is 26 weeks prior to your first contact

Thank you

Now that sort of sets up all sorts of contradictions according to what's been said elsewhere in this thread.  If I'm being reinstated, does the 26 week rule apply to me?  If it does and they use the 26 weeks rule against me, contrary to what reinstatement means, that effectively precludes everybody else who is seeking reinstatement and has been in France for 26 weeks prior to their first re-contact with the DLA Office.

Any ideas before I respond?

[grecophile-2008]

I thought the forum might like to see what the DLA expo teams views are on reinstatement. This is an extract of an e-mail I received from them today. It falls very much in line with the letter Roger Gale has had from Jonathan Shaw (14.4.2009) The writer of the e-mail was anonymous.

                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am responding to your enquiry to DWP Information & Records Management Services regarding the timescales for destruction of documents on DLA cases and processes that have been put in place to handle cases following the ECJ Judgment in C299/05.  They have asked me to address the issues that you raise which are specific to DLA, and to cases affected by the judgment.

 

From the content of your email, it would appear that your husband’s entitlement to DLA will have ended when you moved abroad.  A decision will have been made to that effect and he will have received a letter explaining that he was no longer entitled to DLA.

 

Following a disallowance decision, our electronic system records go through different archiving stages until they are destroyed.  Usually this takes a total of 31 months from the decision being made.  Our paper records are destroyed 14 months after the decision.

 

However, following the ECJ Judgement, procedures were put in place to prevent paper records from being destroyed, where possible.

 

You have also raised a point about the effects of the judgement for people who previously lost entitlement to DLA.  It may help if I clarify the situation.

 

This letter sent to your husband saying that he was no longer entitled to DLA will have explained the options available should he have disagreed with or wished to challenge the decision.

 

UK law allows a one month time period for customers to appeal against benefit decisions, with discretion to extend that limit by a further twelve months giving thirteen months in total.  In some circumstances, for example where there has been official error, it is possible to appeal outside of these timescales.

 

Decisions made before the ECJ ruling on the 18^th of October 2007 cannot now be revised, because it was not until that court ruling that these decisions were shown to be errors of law This means that we will only be able to consider customers’ entitlement from the date that they write to us and ask us to reconsider their position, unless they appealed with in the time limits. 

 

Where customers did appeal, we are unable to reconsider decisions made by an appeal tribunal and we will only be able to consider customers’ entitlement from the date that they write to us.  Customers will have received details of what to do if they disagreed with the tribunal when they received their decision.

 

This means that the earliest date these customers could be entitled to DLA is the date that they contacted us, asking for reinstatement.  If the UK remains responsible for paying DLA, customers will be expected to meet all the other conditions of entitlement at this point, including the test on past presence in the UK.

Hopefully the above answers your questions in full.  Please feel free to contact us should you wish to discuss further."

                              -------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have obviously gone back to them and asked why they think they are superior to ECJ law. I have also asked them for their definition of annullment as my understanding of the ECJ judgment is that the position on exportability reverts back to 1992 and not to the 18 October 2007 when the ruling was made. Also as the DLA have been told they have made an error of law in refusing exportability of DLA/CA and AA ergo any decision notice pertaining to it is also an error of law. What we have to remember is that the DLA keep quoting their regulations and guidelines which are based on UK law and are trying to use these to amend or modify the ECJ judgement. This is not allowed.

[Tony F Dordogne]

But surely reinstatement means a return to the status quo ante, hence re-instatement.  I was instated when I first was awarded the benefit and I see the termination in 2005 as their error in law.

So surely, if the same conditions apply to my claim as applied between the date of my award and my loosing the benefit on moving to France, I would expect reinstatement to mean what it says in the OED.

I'm going to email the anonymous sender of the email to ask them what they mean by reinstatement - devil and advocate come to mind.

[Tony F Dordogne]

Here's my response to their enquiry - the addressee is sort of tongue in cheek because it really pisses me off that they never ever sign their emails, so so much for the government's open management/customer relations bull:

Dear Anonymous sender of emails in the ExpoTeam.

 

Thank you for your message of today.

 

As in your message of today and in another message sent to other people seeking reinstatement today, you have used the term 'reinstatement', could you please indicate what you actually mean by that word?  The short version of the OED indicates that reinstatement means "Restore to, replace in lost position, privileges, etc.; restore to (health) or proper order."  Therefore I am not a new claimant, I am seeking reinstatement to my position in October 2005 and the residency rule does not logically apply.

 

Therefore the date on which I left the UK is known to you because that is the date on which my DLA terminated.  As I am not a new claimant - my claim is for reinstatement (see above) and again I would refer you to the legal ruling on plain language Grey v Pearson (1857, 6HL Case 61) Lord Wednesbury's definition - and as the ECJ decision makes no mention of the 26 week residency rule, I do not see how the question is appropriate.

 

If you could clarify your interpretation of reinstatement, I would be glad to answer your question.

 

I await their reply with interest :)

[Tony F Dordogne]

For a number of reasons, I'm starting to feel really crappy atm, the blood thingy is really biting at my bum now I'm off the chemo but I'm not letting this go, I'm starting to get really really pissed off at being treated like this.  They want a battle, even if it means going back to the Uk, bring it on now, all that money to bail out the banks and they're arguing about what in the grand plan is small beer for DLA claimants in the EU.

Still, if they pay us, Jacqui Smith may have to buy her own f*****g bath plugs.

What makes me really angry is that I was, until about 9 years ago, a hard line Labour supporter, as were the rest of my family - betrayed, bloody right I feel betrayed and even more so now.

[Benjamin]

[quote user="Tony F Dordogne"]

Still, if they pay us, Jacqui Smith may have to buy her own f*****g bath plugs.

Bit upset Tony? Join the club or were you a founder member?  [:D]

What makes me really angry is that I was, until about 9 years ago, a hard line Labour supporter, as were the rest of my family - betrayed, bloody right I feel betrayed and even more so now.

You still can be. This lot aren't the Labour Party. My old Dad will also be turning in his grave.

[/quote]

[dragonrouge]

I am late into this recent flury of postings in that my wife who suffers from RA and has done so for over 32 years has now fallen and broken her ankle so life is a tiny bit tough but we will get there.

This morning I have quickly scanned the various responses and seemingly the Blackpool guys are saying that they were only proved 'wrong' from the date of the judgment and thus everything that went before is fine and dandy unless of course one appealed within the time scales.  Then of course they go on to say that to qualify for DLA and obviously after the date of the judgment one has to fulfill the residency test.  So its smoke and mirrors.

Here I will simply say for no other reason than to help in the process is that whilst our argument was a little different I did appeal within the stated period and on a point of law managed to get the Tribunal to go with me.

The DWP logic escapes me and in our legal system we have checks and balances and thus it is common intent for say the Court of Appeal or the House of Lord to override earlier judgments of lower courts and for the respondent to be put back into the position he or she found themselves prior to suffering let us say the 'loss'  The law does not allow in general terms for betterment simply to put the claimant back to where he or she was and one should do everything one can to limit the 'loss'

Normally retrospective law is considered not to be the 'thing to do' but I do not consider that is the case here.  The case is all about whether or not HMG were correct in their interpretation of the law and the 2007 judgment said they were not.  The judgment is wrapped up in lots of words but in the most simple analysis it says HMG is wrong and therefore decisions that the DWP made were illegal but it did not say there were illegal from the date of the judgment  it said they were illegal.

The ordinary man sitting on top of Lord Dennings Clapham omnibus would I respectfully suggest read it that way.

DWP are seemingly drawing the line as at the date of the judgment and I think that is wrong and I totally disagree with their interpretation of both the law and the judgment.  But I am merely an old legal eagle retired or semi retired in France.  I may be wrong but I think with respect that the law would go with this simplistic approach and which is what for the basis of the discussion I have tried to achieve.

Here you have a major point of law which should be argued and either before a court of a Tribunal.  Here a thought. Should we write to them on the basis that we are absolutely at odds with their interpretation on a point of law and it is logical reasonable and rational for their views and our views to be presented before a tribunal and that equity allows for such a process to be followed.

Logical rational and reasonable are terms to be found in the Wednesbury judgment (google it) and equity comes from Lord Denning and where he said that equity (fair play) should intervene when there were difficulties and where other branches of the law could not help.  This is very much a truncated approach but I think from memory he said it in the High Trees principal case.  Again google it.

I hope you have found this helpful and this is just my view and I have always tried to adopt a simple approach in most things for otherwise confusion creeps in and confusion on the part of the DWP has undoubtedly crept in.

 

rdgs

 

[ali-cat]

Could there be light at the end of the tunnel ....... probably not, but here's hoping.

My claim has, until now, been dealt with solely by the Appeals Service with no guidance from the relevant Civil Service departments & as I posted before I have received numerous letters telling me I had to go to Banbridge for a hearing (Ulster Bus fares reimbursed, of course) which have always been cancelled at the last minute.

Yesterday I received a letter to say that my new appeal date has been set for 20^th May as “the Department have now indicated it should be in a position to advise the decision maker dealing with your appeal so far as the Care Component is concerned.”

I'm certainly not holding my breath, but I may have something to report to you all later this month. I know things seem to being dealt with completely differently in Northern Ireland, but hopefully I will hear something, which may give a little glimmer of hope to everyone else.

[Tony F Dordogne]

Benjamin, you may be right, my mother told me I was born angry - rich coming from her :)

And thanks to all, including the pm, in support - DR, I see your point and perhaps we need (among the claimants) to decide on the point of law we appeal on if things come to that.

Got the 'Have Read' message back this morning - now a 3 week wait for their reply?

[dragonrouge]

Hi I have been doing some work here and quite obviously you should distance yourself from the medical background to DLA and in all of its constitutent parts for it is not about that it is quite simply again an interpretation of the law.  Does the judgment of 2007 read in a very simple format say that it draws a line under such matters on the date of its judgment or does it imply that it does indeed (and which is my view) cover all such denials made by DWP and thus is retrospective?

They say that it is not retrospective and thus  those of use who have not appealed within the prescribed limits and are now resident wherever cannot claim DLA. So they are saying that 2007 is the date of application and as you cannot subscribe to ther residency test then too bad.

In its very basic of terms this is all about a Point of Law and which is of supreme importance both to those who have valid claims and indeed HMG.

This situation has to be tested and before a Tribunal.  Please also note that a Decision Makers decision is not binding it is his or her interpretation.  The Tribunal it has been argued is nothing less than a mouthpiece for DWP and indeed the Commissioner it has been argued also supports the status quo.

However we should research the judgment and make absolutely sure that nothing is lost in the translation between the original language and the subsequent translation.

This appeal process will cost little from the Tribunal to the Commissioner but after that it moves to a differing level so be aware of that.

But you have to go to the Tribunal.

 

 

[barebackrider]

It is ironic that we have similar dates, we appealed after my husband's benefit was stopped in August 2006, and we re applied on March 4th 2008, had the new forms on March 4th 2009 (exactly a year to the date - spooky). I have made several phone calls, and send numerous emails, but as yet have had no response. I was told claims were being dealt with in date order from October 2007, so we were in the queue: they might as well just send the same message out irrespective of the date of the claim! When we get our letter we will also be appealing and yes also taking it to Tribunal, providing my husband (who is 72) and not well at all lives long enough.

regards

BBR