Pip eligibility

245678

Comments

  • Alice_Holt
    Alice_Holt Posts: 5,902
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Your opinion is entirely unhelpful and deliberately so. What is put on the PIP2 (or ESA50 if claiming ESA) is absolutely crucial. It will be the basis of your evidence and even if the DWP largely ignore it you will be falling back on it in making your case at tribunal. .

    Absolutely.
    A badly completed ESA50 / PIP2 makes the tribunal hearing very difficult. The form remains a central piece of evidence for the tribunal panel.

    The appellant has the tricky task of explaining why an activity / descriptor which wasn't a problem when they completed the form actually was a problem. Which can then cause them not to appear credible.

    Their representative has to write a very persuasive statement backed up by compelling medical evidence. Getting such medical evidence which directly relates to the descriptors can be hit and miss as often GP's charge, or the client may not have visited their GP recently, or may not have discussed how the condition affects them.

    If a DWP presenting officer attends the tribunal (and more are), an inadequate form provides a very helpful line of attack to have the appeal dismissed..

    It's quite possible to get a successful tribunal outcome when the form has been botched, but it makes the process much, much more uncertain.
    Alice Holt Forest situated some 4 miles south of Farnham forms the most northerly gateway to the South Downs National Park.
  • Your opinion is entirely unhelpful and deliberately so. What is put on the PIP2 (or ESA50 if claiming ESA) is absolutely crucial. It will be the basis of your evidence and even if the DWP (or private medical contractor) largely ignore it you will be falling back on it in making your case including potentially at tribunal. You don't even know what you put on your PIP2 yet (as you didn't read what someone else put on it and didn't keep a copy) so your comment in that regard seems somewhat diminished. In fact it is likely the decision on your PIP claim is almost exclusively based on the poor completion of the PIP2 and you have seemingly agreed with that.

    The independent evidence suggests a high level of disability. And I agree that the PIP2 in my case was probably poorly completed by those that should know better (the DWP themselves). So given that it would seem that the assessor either didn't look at the independent evidence or if he/she did then it was largely ignored.

    Just goes to show that even with so called 'experts' helping to fill out these forms according to you, they can damage your claim irreparably even if your independent evidence actually supports an award. I do actually wonder sometimes that with all of this negativity involved over the correct type of evidence and who are the best advisors that most claimants are on a hiding to nothing through no fault of their own. Maybe Welfare Rights advisors should be regulated like solicitors and then you can sue them if it all goes wrong.
  • Alice_Holt wrote: »

    The appellant has the tricky task of explaining why an activity / descriptor which wasn't a problem when they completed the form actually was a problem. Which can then cause them not to appear credible.

    .

    It really isn't a case of it not being a problem when the form was completed, it is more a case of an oversight in not showing that there was a problem. Just because something is not mentioned on the application form it doesn't mean to say that it didn't exist.
  • Muttleythefrog
    Muttleythefrog Posts: 19,711
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    The independent evidence suggests a high level of disability. And I agree that the PIP2 in my case was probably poorly completed by those that should know better (the DWP themselves). So given that it would seem that the assessor either didn't look at the independent evidence or if he/she did then it was largely ignored.

    Just goes to show that even with so called 'experts' helping to fill out these forms according to you, they can damage your claim irreparably even if your independent evidence actually supports an award. I do actually wonder sometimes that with all of this negativity involved over the correct type of evidence and who are the best advisors that most claimants are on a hiding to nothing through no fault of their own. Maybe Welfare Rights advisors should be regulated like solicitors and then you can sue them if it all goes wrong.
    Your independent evidence is so old the doctors who provided it may not still be alive... and I wonder how relevant it was anyway regarding the descriptors. But again... you are trying to pass on blame. If you could sue WROs because things don't work out as wanted.. then I would assume WROs would be in even shorter supply. Utterly ridiculous.
    "Do not attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence" - rogerblack
  • NeilCr
    NeilCr Posts: 4,430
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    Your independent evidence is so old the doctors who provided it may not still be alive... and I wonder how relevant it was anyway regarding the descriptors. But again... you are trying to pass on blame. If you could sue WROs because things don't work out as wanted.. then I would assume WROs would be in even shorter supply. Utterly ridiculous.


    Rockingbilly's form wasn't completed by a WRO. It was someone from the DWP. I am sure he could try suing them if he wants!. Given he signed the form as true it would be interesting to see how he gets on
  • Your independent evidence is so old the doctors who provided it may not still be alive... and I wonder how relevant it was anyway regarding the descriptors. But again... you are trying to pass on blame. If you could sue WROs because things don't work out as wanted.. then I would assume WROs would be in even shorter supply. Utterly ridiculous.

    It's old because there is very little more that anyone can do for me. Surely you don't expect people to keep seeing medical professionals for no reason?
    I wonder how many claimants actually go away with their completed claim form, read it, amend it and then send it off? Most wouldn't understand what is put on the form hence why they need help. I trust people that are supposed to be 'in the know'. Otherwise what is the point.
    So if you went to a solicitor and he/she was negligent in how they dealt with the problem what would you do?
    If someone holds themselves out to be an expert and offers to do some work for you, then you would expect it to be done right. - and that goes for the DWP AND WRO's. People can and should be held accountable for errors or mistakes that they make.
  • NeilCr wrote: »
    Rockingbilly's form wasn't completed by a WRO. It was someone from the DWP. I am sure he could try suing them if he wants!. Given he signed the form as true it would be interesting to see how he gets on
    So who then is responsible for making errors on the claim form - me or the professional who completed it on my behalf?
    Signing a statement like that is only valid if you as an ordinary person believed at the time that it had been completed correctly. It does not absolve responsibility or liability on the part of the person completing the form.
  • bigbulldog
    bigbulldog Posts: 632
    First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Rockingbilly again YOU have derailed another posters thread out of 18 posts 7 of them are yours about the same old stuff......


    START YOUR OWN THREAD.
  • bspm
    bspm Posts: 541
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Could I just make a suggestion?

    The only reason that our resident troll is able to derail a thread is because we respond to him.

    Don't respond, simples, then he may make his own thread and we can all argue there with his stupidity.
  • Muttleythefrog
    Muttleythefrog Posts: 19,711
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    edited 14 March 2017 at 11:20AM
    It's old because there is very little more that anyone can do for me. Surely you don't expect people to keep seeing medical professionals for no reason?
    I wonder how many claimants actually go away with their completed claim form, read it, amend it and then send it off? Most wouldn't understand what is put on the form hence why they need help. I trust people that are supposed to be 'in the know'. Otherwise what is the point.
    So if you went to a solicitor and he/she was negligent in how they dealt with the problem what would you do?
    If someone holds themselves out to be an expert and offers to do some work for you, then you would expect it to be done right. - and that goes for the DWP AND WRO's. People can and should be held accountable for errors or mistakes that they make.
    Of course not... in fact I don't. But then you must appreciate that does mean the evidence becomes old and potentially irrelevant on both counts of being timely or relevant to the criteria being looked at. Your evidence which you claim indicates that you are seriously disabled may well do that but be so old as to be unreliable or be irrelevant to the specific criteria. It may be that things claimed on the PIP2 are not corroborated by other evidence supplied... it's not like the doctors etc you have seen in the past could have predicted PIP or the criteria.

    You are making an argument that professionals should act professionally... that's perfectly valid and for example you could sue a solicitor for professional negligence. However you were talking about something very different.. which is suing because you don't get the outcome you want. Professional advisers will try to give best advice... but they're unlikely to offer any guarantees of outcome... imagine how many defence lawyers or barristers we'd have sleeping on the streets if they could be sued if they lost a case..lol

    You need to take responsibility for your failings... and perhaps remember you're not the only PIP claimant in the world... others need advice... not interference.
    "Do not attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence" - rogerblack
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.7K Life & Family
  • 247.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards