Who's job is it?

benniebert

Does anybody know if there is any truth in this?


If when completing the PIP application form, due to difficulties in filling in forms and not being able to access help from say CAB, very little information is put on the form (only ticks) and no supporting evidence is sent in, you will be penalised by both the DWP when they come to decide on an award AND a Tribunal for failing to give the DWP enough information initially?
I have in the past been to a Tribunal where the claimant was effectively penalised for not filling in the form fully - ie they sided with the DWP in the summing up citing that as one of the reasons.


I ask this as after reading lots of bumf about filling in this form and submitting evidence, the last PIP review made it clear that the onus is on the DWP to seek out evidence/information as well as to treat vulnerable claimants with care.


This generally will affect those with mental health issues.

benniebert

Bump Anyone?

sheeps68

My opinion for what it is worth is, they can only make a decision on the information they have. So therefore just ticks in boxes with minimal extra information can only give a partial answer to a persons needs where added information explains it better.

robotrobo

benniebert wrote: »

Bump Anyone?

Hi.
Google , benefits & work site .
Join for £15.
& they will give you all the info that you need on what to say &answer all the questions they ask , I have not done it myself , but take a look.

Indie_Kid

robotrobo wrote: »

Hi.
Google , benefits & work site .
Join for £15.
& they will give you all the info that you need on what to say &answer all the questions they ask , I have not done it myself , but take a look.

You can get plenty of information for free online.

It does say on the ESA form (PDF version at least) to fill the form in in full. Why you'd just use the tick boxes is beyond me. DWP will only seek extra information if they feel they need it.

rogerblack

keyoad issues.
In general they don't need to show beyond reasonable doubt that you're not entitled.
They need to show that it is moe likely than not.

benniebert

sheeps68 wrote: »

My opinion for what it is worth is, they can only make a decision on the information they have. So therefore just ticks in boxes with minimal extra information can only give a partial answer to a persons needs where added information explains it better.

That is quite a familiar situation that crops up day in day out when the DWP assess a claim for DLA/PIP/AA. What you say is obvious, but not everyone does or is able to add much more than tick the boxes.

Indie_Kid wrote: »

You can get plenty of information for free online.

It does say on the ESA form (PDF version at least) to fill the form in in full. Why you'd just use the tick boxes is beyond me. DWP will only seek extra information if they feel they need it.

As I have stated above, the DWP themselves have said that many claims are made with just the boxes ticked. It may well be beyond you, but not everyone is able or willing to spend time writing essays on the difficulties they have. Finding help is also a nightmare. One of the reasons why I left the CAB, was because claimants were expected to visit to be assessed and then told to come back many weeks later for a proper interview. People just gave up waiting.
It would be fairly obvious to me and to you I believe that if the DWP are faced with a claim form with minimal information then they should feel the need to investigate further.

rogerblack wrote: »

keyoad issues.
In general they don't need to show beyond reasonable doubt that you're not entitled.
They need to show that it is moe likely than not



I agree with you fully, but whose responsibility is it then if all the DWP have is a partially completed form (to the best of the ability of the claimant) to ensure that a decision is made on all possible evidence on the balance of probabilities?

Part of my concern is how would the Tribunal view the matter.
They should start from scratch as we all know, but I have come across a situation where not filling the form in fully for whatever reason, weighed against the claimant by itself.


The question asked by the chair of the Tribunal was: 'Who completed this claim form?' The claimant replied: 'I did, why?'
The chair then said: It is poorly completed and it is no wonder that the DWP made the decision they did. It is lacking content and substance to such an extent that we are finding it difficult to establish if what you originally claimed where your difficulties with the verbal evidence that has been given today. We have nothing to compare your answers to.'


In the Statement of Reasons, the chair made a reference that as they had no comparisons to draw on, the verbal evidence may not be entirely relied upon.


This I felt at the time was unfair on the claimant who actually was unable to fill in the form with more detail.

tomtom256

benniebert wrote: »

That is quite a familiar situation that crops up day in day out when the DWP assess a claim for DLA/PIP/AA. What you say is obvious, but not everyone does or is able to add much more than tick the boxes.





As I have stated above, the DWP themselves have said that many claims are made with just the boxes ticked. It may well be beyond you, but not everyone is able or willing to spend time writing essays on the difficulties they have. Finding help is also a nightmare. One of the reasons why I left the CAB, was because claimants were expected to visit to be assessed and then told to come back many weeks later for a proper interview. People just gave up waiting.
It would be fairly obvious to me and to you I believe that if the DWP are faced with a claim form with minimal information then they should feel the need to investigate further.

[/COLOR]




Part of my concern is how would the Tribunal view the matter.
They should start from scratch as we all know, but I have come across a situation where not filling the form in fully for whatever reason, weighed against the claimant by itself.


The question asked by the chair of the Tribunal was: 'Who completed this claim form?' The claimant replied: 'I did, why?'
The chair then said: It is poorly completed and it is no wonder that the DWP made the decision they did. It is lacking content and substance to such an extent that we are finding it difficult to establish if what you originally claimed where your difficulties with the verbal evidence that has been given today. We have nothing to compare your answers to.'


In the Statement of Reasons, the chair made a reference that as they had no comparisons to draw on, the verbal evidence may not be entirely relied upon.


This I felt at the time was unfair on the claimant who actually was unable to fill in the form with more detail.

I am unsure why a claimant would be unable to provide more detail on the form.

Unless they were a blind, deaf, mute. In which case I would of thought their carer etx would do this for them.

I presume the tribunal would put the onus on the claimant to fully complete the form so that the DWP could then look to obtain further evidence as appropriate.

If it is unclear to the DWP what actual problems are caused by the disability, how do you expect them to obtain the further evidence you claim they should be getting!

benniebert

tomtom256 wrote: »

I am unsure why a claimant would be unable to provide more detail on the form.

Unless they were a blind, deaf, mute. In which case I would of thought their carer etx would do this for them.

I presume the tribunal would put the onus on the claimant to fully complete the form so that the DWP could then look to obtain further evidence as appropriate.

If it is unclear to the DWP what actual problems are caused by the disability, how do you expect them to obtain the further evidence you claim they should be getting!

Seriously, you don't know why? Not everyone is able to beit because of illness, disability or simply because they don't know. You can't judge others based on your abilities.


But that is the point, Surely the whole idea behind a Tribunal is to start from the beginning. It shouldn't matter a hoot what form was filled in or how. What should only matter is that the claimant can convince the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities based on evidence handed over and verbal explanations given. To even suggest that a Tribunal should base it's decision on how well you complete the claim form is totally wrong.


Aren't you looking at it from the wrong end? If you supplied a form, fully completed and with supporting evidence there would be NO need for the DWP to look for more evidence. It should be the cases which have sparse information and no supporting evidence submitted that would be 'crying out' for the DWP to obtain more evidence.


But it does seem and I could harp on all day and night but it won't change a thing. Awards are only (or generally) given to those lucky enough (to find professional help) or clever enough (to deal with the form in a proper fashion, gathering supporting evidence as they go along).

rogerblack

benniebert wrote: »

I have in the past been to a Tribunal where the claimant was effectively penalised for not filling in the form fully - ie they sided with the DWP in the summing up citing that as one of the reasons.

Is what you mean by this:
'I filled in the form for the claimant, only ticking boxes, then sent it off. It was refused, and I appealed.
I went to the tribunal without the claimant, without any other documentation and they came to a negative decision?'

benniebert

rogerblack wrote: »

Is what you mean by this:
'I filled in the form for the claimant, only ticking boxes, then sent it off. It was refused, and I appealed.
I went to the tribunal without the claimant, without any other documentation and they came to a negative decision?'

No, not at all. The claimant filled in the form just ticking the boxes then sent it off. It was refused and they applied for a MR and then a Tribunal hearing.


I attended as a friend only, for moral support. I had the claimant get together written evidence that was readily available (GP refused to write a letter as did their Consultant) - repeat prescription list, appointment letters etc.


The Tribunal was given the evidence before we went in. The claimant was questioned about his problems and difficulties. The Tribunal refused to accept what he had said as, in their words, they couldn't find any consistency in what the claimant had said as there was nothing written on the claim form to compare it to.


Result: Appeal failed.