PIP, Reconsiderations and eventually Tribunals

dori2o

I asked this question originally nearly 2 years ago.

Those of us who have been through DLA tribunals know about the case law that was used in many peoples cases in order to show that our claims met the criteria for the benefit to be paid

It may be too early to ask this question but when PIP appeals fail and claimants inevitably go to the Tribunals, will they still be able to rely on the past case law which had previously been used to define certain aspects of the criteria, for example what does and doesn't apply to the meaning of 'virtually unable to walk' or what tasks would normally be used in the cooking test, or what tasks are expected to be able to be carried out in order to meet the criteria for washing/bathing????

If this case law is denied then for many years many people will be in limbo whilst new case law is built up from tribunal appeals being passed to the upper tribunals/commissioners etc.

rogerblack

Caselaw is applicable only as far as the descriptors have not changed enough to make it meaningless.

Much of the existing caselaw has in effect been imported into the test - if you read the descriptors properly.
For example - for the cooking test - as with all tests, now you have to explicitly be able to do the task as often as reasonably needed, to a reasonable quality, safely, and while taking no more than twice the time a person in your place without your particular disabilities would.


Bathing is a bit different - the bathing descriptor prescribes certain classes of bathing 'Wash the legs and feet' - for example.

You can't go from a more general test under DLA, and import the exact details laid down in caselaw that referred to details in the existing legal language.

But it might be possible to use rulings on what level of cleanliness was acceptable, or rulings on specific health conditions and bathing.

What you most certainly can't do is go from rulings that state .... 'so any claimant claimant like this is entitled to high rate mobility', and take it that the same claimant must therefore be entitled to enhanced rate under PIP - without identifying specific descriptors under PIP that leads to that conclusion.

It is quite legal for fewer people to be entitled to PIP than DLA.

However, in many cases, the DWP may want to resist the importation of old caselaw.
If this happens, then it's the usual route.
It needs to be appealed to the upper tribunal that will then make a decision which is binding on decisionmakers.