Hi, fellow uk.people.disabled folk,

Time for a straw poll?

Who has - at their last renewal application - had their care rate
lowered from the previous award?

This happened to me ten years ago.  It went to Tribunal and was
restored to the previous rate.  Subsequent renewal in 2003 went
through on-the-nod, and now at the 2008 'trial' they have some new
intelligence that gives them the impression I need less Care than I
have done over the past 12 years!  Such wisdom?  Where do they get it
from?  Not from my application form, that's for sure!

Any similar stories in recent years?

Any recent House of Lords precedents to work with (since the Mallinson
and the Halliday cases, I mean)?

Cheers,

Pete.

On 20 Jun, 15:27, PeeVeeAh  wrote:
> Hi, fellow uk.people.disabled folk,
>
> Time for a straw poll?
>
> Who has - at their last renewal application - had their care rate
> lowered from the previous award?
>
> This happened to me ten years ago.  It went to Tribunal and was
> restored to the previous rate.  Subsequent renewal in 2003 went
> through on-the-nod, and now at the 2008 'trial' they have some new
> intelligence that gives them the impression I need less Care than I
> have done over the past 12 years!  Such wisdom?  Where do they get it
> from?  Not from my application form, that's for sure!
>
> Any similar stories in recent years?
>
> Any recent House of Lords precedents to work with (since the Mallinson
> and the Halliday cases, I mean)?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete.

It does rather presume that the initial award is correct and only the
renewal award is wrong.
Whereas I'd expect any stage to have mistakes made - too much, too
little, not awarded, awarded etc.
Could very well be that inital claim award is incorrect and renewal
corrects it. Or even, as happened when they first started in the early
1990s, that adjudication officers were told to award for a year or two
as it took a lot less time than doing the rejection letter. Then
turned down on renewal when things aren't so chaotic and rushed.

If people don't agreewith a decision, thats why you have further
options to get the decision looked at again.

But it doesn't mean that any decision to award a different rate than
what the person wants must therefore be incorrect.

Martin  <><

On Jun 20, 4:09 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
wrote:
> On 20 Jun, 15:27, PeeVeeAh  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi, fellow uk.people.disabled folk,
>
> > Time for a straw poll?
>
> > Who has - at their last renewal application - had their care rate
> > lowered from the previous award?
>
> > This happened to me ten years ago.  It went to Tribunal and was
> > restored to the previous rate.  Subsequent renewal in 2003 went
> > through on-the-nod, and now at the 2008 'trial' they have some new
> > intelligence that gives them the impression I need less Care than I
> > have done over the past 12 years!  Such wisdom?  Where do they get it
> > from?  Not from my application form, that's for sure!
>
> > Any similar stories in recent years?
>
> > Any recent House of Lords precedents to work with (since the Mallinson
> > and the Halliday cases, I mean)?
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Pete.
>
> It does rather presume that the initial award is correct and only the
> renewal award is wrong.
> Whereas I'd expect any stage to have mistakes made - too much, too
> little, not awarded, awarded etc.
> Could very well be that inital claim award is incorrect and renewal
> corrects it. Or even, as happened when they first started in the early
> 1990s, that adjudication officers were told to award for a year or two
> as it took a lot less time than doing the rejection letter. Then
> turned down on renewal when things aren't so chaotic and rushed.
>
> If people don't agreewith a decision, thats why you have further
> options to get the decision looked at again.
>
> But it doesn't mean that any decision to award a different rate than
> what the person wants must therefore be incorrect.
>
> Martin  <><- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


How 'fishilly' perverse, Martin!

The original 1997 award was middle-and-lower, the 1998 renewal was
reset to lower-and-lower (against all the precedents for younger Blind
applicants) - restored to middle-and-lower at Tribunal and then the
2003 renewal re-confirmed the middle-and-lower.  Where was the error?
Clearly, the Tribunal agreed with the original AO and the 2003 AO's
judgement.  And all through these times my capabilities have slightly
deteriorated!  All of which has been made clear in the forms.  Do not
aim to defend this particular case.  I'm loolking for help, not
condescention!

Anuone else with constructive input?

Cheers,

Pete.

On 20 Jun, 17:30, PeeVeeAh  wrote:
> On Jun 20, 4:09 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20 Jun, 15:27, PeeVeeAh  wrote:
>
> > > Hi, fellow uk.people.disabled folk,
>
> > > Time for a straw poll?
>
> > > Who has - at their last renewal application - had their care rate
> > > lowered from the previous award?
>
> > > This happened to me ten years ago.  It went to Tribunal and was
> > > restored to the previous rate.  Subsequent renewal in 2003 went
> > > through on-the-nod, and now at the 2008 'trial' they have some new
> > > intelligence that gives them the impression I need less Care than I
> > > have done over the past 12 years!  Such wisdom?  Where do they get it
> > > from?  Not from my application form, that's for sure!
>
> > > Any similar stories in recent years?
>
> > > Any recent House of Lords precedents to work with (since the Mallinson
> > > and the Halliday cases, I mean)?
>
> > > Cheers,
>
> > > Pete.
>
> > It does rather presume that the initial award is correct and only the
> > renewal award is wrong.
> > Whereas I'd expect any stage to have mistakes made - too much, too
> > little, not awarded, awarded etc.
> > Could very well be that inital claim award is incorrect and renewal
> > corrects it. Or even, as happened when they first started in the early
> > 1990s, that adjudication officers were told to award for a year or two
> > as it took a lot less time than doing the rejection letter. Then
> > turned down on renewal when things aren't so chaotic and rushed.
>
> > If people don't agreewith a decision, thats why you have further
> > options to get the decision looked at again.
>
> > But it doesn't mean that any decision to award a different rate than
> > what the person wants must therefore be incorrect.
>
> > Martin  <><- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> How 'fishilly' perverse, Martin!
>
> The original 1997 award was middle-and-lower, the 1998 renewal was
> reset to lower-and-lower (against all the precedents for younger Blind
> applicants) - restored to middle-and-lower at Tribunal and then the
> 2003 renewal re-confirmed the middle-and-lower.  Where was the error?
> Clearly, the Tribunal agreed with the original AO and the 2003 AO's
> judgement.  And all through these times my capabilities have slightly
> deteriorated!  All of which has been made clear in the forms.  Do not
> aim to defend this particular case.  I'm loolking for help, not
> condescention!
>
> Anuone else with constructive input?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I wasn't defending this particular case, merely pointing out that
errors can be made on new claims as well as renewals. So that what is
awarded might not be correct in the first place.
Even tribunals have been known to be wrong - which is why there is
another level of appeal above them!

Did you have help to fill in the forms or do them yourself?

Martin  <><

Martin  <><