Rule 37 set‑aside pip iidb uc lcw

ITSALLLIES
ITSALLLIES Community Member Posts: 46 Contributor
in Benefits and income

Hi everyone, I’m looking for some guidance from people with experience in complex benefit appeals.

I’ve recently submitted Rule 37 set‑aside requests for multiple past tribunal decisions (IIDB, UC LCWRA, and PIP). At the time of the original hearings I didn’t have access to key medical evidence, and several records were later found to be incorrect or incomplete — including an Emergency Department follow‑up that never reached my GP. Because of that, the wrong diagnosis was repeated across all three benefit assessments.

There was also a forced migration from JSA to UC in December 2017, where no Work Capability Assessment was ever carried out. That UC claim ran until December 2018, covering the same period as the ESA/JSA LCW issue, and this is now part of what I’m querying.

Through SARs and NHS corrections obtained in 2025–2026, I’ve now uncovered:

  • missing ED follow‑up
  • GP record showing the ED letter was mis‑sent
  • MSK/physio notes based on the wrong mechanism
  • a medico‑legal expert report relying on the same incorrect information
  • imaging contradictions (later blind reviews show trauma‑pattern injury)
  • additional GP entries and SAR evidence confirming a fall from a ladder and deterioration and change in diagnosis years later and falsely added rare conditions removed from gp records
  • employer evidence showing functional decline
  • this also affected my personal injury claim, which I’m now seeking legal help for

All three tribunals relied on the same contaminated evidence, so I’ve asked for the decisions to be set aside and reheard.

I’m not asking for legal advice — just wondering if anyone here has dealt with multiple appeals being reopened at once, or cases where new evidence discovered years later led to a set‑aside or supersession. Any shared experience or insight would be really appreciated.

Thanks.

Comments

  • Rachel_Scope
    Rachel_Scope Posts: 4,887 Online Community Team

    Hi @ITSALLLIES. This sounds very stressful and complicated, I'm sorry you're having to deal with this. As it is quite complex I would advise you to speak to a trained benefits adviser. You can find one here https://advicefinder.turn2us.org.uk/

  • flour
    flour Community Member Posts: 154 Empowering

    @ITSALLLIES

    Its only worth pursuing if this new evidence would make a material difference to the decisions.

    JSA to UC would not be a mechanism as such to bring about a WCA - rather when you claim UC in the migration you should have reported a health condition and triggered the WCA through fit notes.

    What is this rule 37 you refer to - when I have searched it I have only found Section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 or Practice Direction 37?

    What forms have you submitted to the courts for the set asides?

    You can at any time report to DWP new evidence which may trigger an award review.

  • ITSALLLIES
    ITSALLLIES Community Member Posts: 46 Contributor

    Just to clarify the Rule 37 point — it is the correct rule for benefit tribunals. Rule 37 comes from the Tribunal Procedure (First‑tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008, and it allows a past decision to be set aside where there was missing evidence, incorrect evidence, or a procedural irregularity. It applies to PIP, IIDB and UC/ESA appeals.

    In my case all three tribunals relied on the same contaminated medical record: missing ED follow‑up, mis‑sent GP letter, wrong diagnosis repeated across assessments, MSK notes based on the wrong mechanism, and imaging later shown to contradict the original interpretation. That’s why I’ve asked for the decisions to be set aside and reheard — the evidence wasn’t available at the time and materially affected the findings.

    The JSA→UC migration point isn’t about UC “triggering” a WCA, it’s that a WCA should have been carried out because a health condition was reported, and the incorrect medical information prevented that from happening.

    So the Rule 37 applications are simply to correct the defective tribunal decisions and have them reheard using the corrected evidence.

    Just to add a bit of clarity — the reason I’ve asked for the decisions to be set aside is because the medical evidence isn’t consistent. The original assessments all repeated an “early osteoarthritis” narrative, but the later imaging reviews and corrected GP/SAR records show a trauma‑pattern injury from the ladder fall. That contradiction only came to light years later once the missing ED follow‑up, mis‑sent GP letter, and incorrect MSK notes were uncovered.

    So the tribunals were relying on evidence that was both incomplete and factually wrong. That’s exactly what Rule 37 is for — correcting decisions that were made on the wrong medical foundation.

Categories