Making a robust determination of entitlement
This section covers the cognitive aspect of the decision-making process. The process of making a determination consists of:
- finding of facts
- making conclusions of law
A robust determination of entitlement means that you have enough relevant information to, on the balance of probabilities, establish the facts of the case at hand and make a conclusion of law.
This information can come from:
- the application or review form
- any supporting information available
- any decision-making tools you used
It also means that you have made the determination based on the standards for good decisions set out in this chapter.
Related reading
- The balance of probabilities
- Finding of fact and conclusions of law
- Decision-making tools
- Getting determinations right
- Making robust decisions – example section
What to consider when making a determination of entitlement
You must consider all of the relevant information on the individual’s circumstances that is available to you in order to establish facts.
This could include:
- the application or review form
- any supporting information, if available
- information gathered through using decision-making tools, where necessary.
Decision-making tools include:
- any information recorded from follow-up phone calls with the individual where appropriate or the individual’ s representative.
- additional supporting information from a professional and/ or the individual’s wider support network
- decision-making and medical guidance
- advice received through a case discussion
- colleague support
Related reading
- Decision-making tools
- Establishing if information is relevant
- Types of information not to consider
- Supporting Information chapter
Establishing if information is relevant
During case familiarisation you might conclude that some information is not relevant.
You should not use the irrelevant information to establish the facts of that case.
Information might not be relevant if, for example:
- it describes the prognosis, symptoms or impact of a condition in relation to people in general when you’ve already established the individual experiences the condition differently
- it covers a period of time that is not relevant to the individual’s application or review
- it was provided by a person, or organisation, who is unlikely to be familiar with the individual, their conditions, disability or needs
- you’ve found inconsistencies in the information provided and established that it’s more likely than not that one or more pieces of information is inaccurate or untrue.
For example, the individual’s description could differ from the GP’s account of their symptoms. The individual could state that their symptoms have got worse recently. As their GP last saw them 6 months ago, you establish that it is more likely than not the GP is describing the individual’s symptoms before the recent change.
Read more about establishing relevance and quality of supporting information.