I got a 'standard refusal' but, if I get around to it, I will continue to fight it.
If you are interested, this was the letter I sent with the claim.
The basis being was that we were not paid because of a faulty interpretation of the law, not that we were not entitled. Had they decided to pay us, because of a change in the law, then they could have claim that we were not entitled.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write regarding the Winter Fuel allowance.
I understand that as a result of a review following the Judgment in the Stewart case, in the European Courts Of Justice (http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/m-31-12.pdf) it was decided to allow claims by those would have qualified for the allowance but for the fact that they had left UK.
That the original decision was over- turned, I would suggest means that those affected, who have now been paid for last year, should be paid for the previous years when they became qualified by age. The situation I believe is analogous to a case where say drivers have been convicted of a law which subsequently proves to be wrong, example convicted of driving over 30 mph in an area where the street lights are more than 200 feet apart. (Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984). When such error is discovered all similar convictions are automatically quashed.
https://www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment/overview states one should get a Winter Fuel Payment automatically if they are receiving a social security. I was being paid Invalidity Benefit from about 1987 until receiving my State Retirement Pension (b 26.12.39) and thus I believe I should have been paid the Winter Fuel Allowance from my 60th birthday automatically.
That I did not bring this to your attention at the times was because I was informed by DHSS/DHS/DWP I was ineligible by my place of residence. Now accepted as not a valid reason.