Setting an earlier start date if it would be unjust not to do so

There are circumstances that would make it unjust not to set an earlier date for the increase in entitlement to take effect (PADP regs, reg. 37(2))

Case managers should make the decision

• whether it would be unjust not to set an earlier date
• what that earlier date should be,

based on information already available to them. This could be, for example, through details provided on the client’s review form or further information provided later in a redetermination form.

One scenario where it would be unjust not to set an earlier start date would be where both:

• the award review has been delayed
• the delay was caused by Social Security Scotland

Examples of scenarios where Social Security Scotland is responsible for delays in reviewing a case include:

• forms or documents submitted by the individual as part of their review have got lost
• pre-review notifications or review packs were not sent out on time
• after completed review forms have been received, reviews are concluded more than 12 weeks after their review date.

This list is not exhaustive.

The case manager must refer to the relevant operational guidance chapter where processing has been delayed and DMG chapter when deciding whether setting an earlier date would be appropriate.

Another scenario would be where the client reaches out to Social Security Scotland to explain that they didn’t notice the change, or have a good reason not to have reported it within a reasonable timeframe due to, for example:

• Impacts of their condition or overall health
• Bereavement
• A hospital stay

This list is not exhaustive.

If a case manager is uncertain about whether it would be unjust to not set an earlier date for a change of entitlement, they should seek advice from their decision team manager.