A decision on an award can be superseded if –
- there has been a change of circumstances since the original decision was made; or
- following an assessment by a health care professional; or
- you failed to return a questionnaire or attend an assessment consultation.
The rules relating to supersessions are in regulations.
Regulation 23(1) of the Decisions and Appeals regulations provides that a decision can be superseded where –
- there has been a relevant change of circumstances since the decision to be superseded had effect…; or
- it is expected that a relevant change of circumstances will occur.
Regulations 26(1)(a) of the Decisions and Appeals regulations provides that a PIP decision may be superseded where the DWP has –
- received medical evidence from a healthcare professional or other person approved by the Secretary of State.
Regulation 26(2) of the Decisions and Appeals regulations provides the power to supersede a decision after failures to return a questionnaire or to attend an assessment consultation. -
(2) The decision awarding personal independence payment may be superseded where there has been a negative determination.
Negative determination is defined in section 80(5) and (6) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 as meaning ‘a determination that a person does not meet’ the PIP disability conditions.
Regulation 8(3) of the main PIP regulations provides for making a negative determination for failures to provide information or evidence -
(3) Where [the claimant] fails without good reason to comply with the request referred to in paragraph (1) [for information or evidence], a negative determination in relation to the component to which the failure related must be made.
Regulation 9(2) of the main PIP regulations provides for making a negative determination for failures to attend an assessment consultation -
(2) Subject to paragraph (3) [notice requirements], where [the claimant] fails without good reason to attend for or participate in a consultation referred to in paragraph (1), a negative determination must be made.
NB - regulation 11 of the main PIP regulations enables the Secretary of State to determine afresh whether a claimant continues to meet the disability conditions for PIP at any time and for any reason (but grounds for supersession are still required following that determination) -
11. Where it has been determined that [the claimant] has limited ability or severely limited ability to carry out either or both daily living activities or mobility activities, the Secretary of State may, for any reason and at any time, determine afresh in accordance with regulation 4 whether [the claimant] continues to have such limited ability or severely limited ability.
Sources: Regulation 23 and regulation 26 of the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013 (SI.No.381/2013)
Section 80 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 includes the definition of ‘negative determination’.
Regulations 8, 9 and 11 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (SI.N0.377/2013).
Commentary: The Upper Tribunal has established clear ground rules for tribunals on the requirement to identify grounds of supersession. In  UKUT 538 (AAC) (reported as  AACR 19), Judge Mesher holds that a tribunal must identify a ground of supersession under the legislation, a factual basis for the superseding decision and the date from which that decision was effective. A number of other Upper Tribunal decisions support this approach including  UKUT 481 (AAC),  UKUT 37 (AAC) and  UKUT 231 (AAC). Tribunals must also take care in how they go about identifying a supersession ground, as set out by Judge Jacobs in  UKUT 82 (AAC), by making findings of fact before deciding what ground applies.
In the case of planned reviews, Judge Mesher confirms, in  UKUT 537 (AAC), that reviews can be initiated for any reason under PIP Regulation 11 but there is still a requirement to identify supersession grounds if the awarding decision is changed. | Add commentary or suggest an edit.
Effective dates for awards superseded as a result of DWP’s review exercises following MH v SSWP and RJ & Ors v SSWP
-  UKUT 221 (AAC)
Relationship between ‘change of circumstances’ and ‘new medical evidence’ supersessions of a claim where limitation on movement between PIP mobility components after pensionable age may apply
-  UKUT 185 (AAC)
Tribunal uunable to disapply legislation with unintended lacuna relating to revision or supersession of PIP awards in DLA transfer cases where claimant aged over 65 / extra-statutory payment made to claimant
-  UKUT 107 (AAC)
Tribunal should have considered redetermining PIP appeal after setting aside invalid supersession decision
-  UKUT 165 (AAC)
Tribunal wrong to identify grounds for supersession before assessing evidence and finding facts on entitlement
-  UKUT 82 (AAC)
Supersession under regulation 26(1)(a) of the Universal Credit etc (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013 and powers of tribunals when making new decisions
-  UKUT 3 (AAC)
Tribunal erred in law by failing to identify grounds for supersession of a PIP decision that resulted in a different outcome
-  UKUT 487 (AAC)
- Tribunals must identify basis for supersession of a PIP decision and explain removal of entitlement
-  UKUT 231 (AAC)
Need for DWP and tribunals to show grounds for superseding a PIP award made by an earlier First-tier Tribunal
-  UKUT 46 (AAC)
Duties of tribunals to identify decision(s) under appeal and grounds for supersession when considering appeals against removal of PIP awards
-  UKUT 37 (AAC)
Tribunals need not consider other grounds of supersession if decision is changed on basis of medical evidence
-  UKUT 538 (AAC)
-  AACR 19
Planned reviews of existing PIP awards can be started for any reason but grounds must be provided if award is superseded
-  UKUT 537 (AAC)
Tribunal must identify grounds of supersession and date from which it takes effect when dealing with a decision to withdraw an existing award of PIP
-  UKUT 481 (AAC)