PIP form

melbury

Arrived today and OMG it looks so intimidating:(

Do all the description bits have to be handwritten or can it be typed and attached to the blank pages at the back? There is just so much to write - no chance of it fitting into the few lines they give, so thought I would just put in there "see attached point xxx and then attach a couple of sheets of paper containing all relevant information.

Any advice gratefully received.

Thanks.

rogerblack

You can put all of the text on a seperate letter, if it is appropriate, yes.

Just a sheet, with '15' - if it's box 15, ...

melbury

I have letters from consultants/surgeons that OH has seen over the years detailing his various health issues, so it is probably worth attaching copies of those as well.

How long does it usually take from submitting the form to being called for an assessment?

bigbulldog

I submitted my forms back in June 2014 had my assessment in May 2015 and 3 weeks later I got my award.:)

rogerblack

bigbulldog wrote: »

I submitted my forms back in June 2014 had my assessment in May 2015 and 3 weeks later I got my award.:)

This is misleading for new claims though.
At the moment - the average wait including old claims - is 11 weeks.
New ones are averaging much faster.

bigbulldog

rogerblack wrote: »

This is misleading for new claims though.

Not really misleading as it was fact in my experience when I submitted my claim forms in I mean no one should have to wait as long as I did and if they are processing them faster then that's great news.:)

melbury

I was intending to put a handwritten comment under each relevant point, saying "see attached sheet" and then heading each typed sheet up with that point number.

Also, can't see a place anywhere on the form to put that I have completed it on behalf of my OH, although he will sign it. Pretty sure the ESA form had a box near the front.

carole.uk

I rang PIP to ask for a form on 27th April 2015, received my form within a week, posted it on the 18th May. On the 9th June I had my assessment. I had a letter yesterday saying I was allowed the first part but no mobility so rang today to ask for a reconsideration Good luck & ask for help in filling it in

rogerblack

bigbulldog wrote: »

Not really misleading as it was fact in my experience when I submitted my claim forms in I mean no one should have to wait as long as I did and if they are processing them faster then that's great news.:)

For claims submitted recently.
At one point, the average waiting time hit 40 weeks.
It's now 11, with that average being distorted by some very old claims.

I see I was unclear. By 'including old claims' - I did not mean that no claims in the past took more than 11 weeks, or indeed the average in the past was 11 weeks, but that as of the most recent figures, including all claims, the average wait is 11 weeks.
Minus 4 weeks typically, in reality, as the form is typically returned not before the deadline.

melbury

carole.uk wrote: »

I rang PIP to ask for a form on 27th April 2015, received my form within a week, posted it on the 18th May. On the 9th June I had my assessment. I had a letter yesterday saying I was allowed the first part but no mobility so rang today to ask for a reconsideration Good luck & ask for help in filling it in

Just wondered, did you fill the form in yourself or get CAB or suchlike to help? I only ask because the man I spoke to when requesting the form, said a lot of people do this.

So is the general assumption from them that people are not capable of filling in the form and should seek help? If so, then why do they make it so long and drawn out?

I like to think that I am a reasonably intelligent person and so should be able to do this, but of course there is a huge difference between what a normal person writes down and what those in the "know" put down. So can't decide what is the best thing to do.

rogerblack

melbury wrote: »

I like to think that I am a reasonably intelligent person and so should be able to do this, but of course there is a huge difference between what a normal person writes down and what those in the "know" put down. So can't decide what is the best thing to do.

It varies.
As a starting point - ignore utterly what your 'main' problem is.
Imagine someone has been following you around for the last month, and watching everything you do.

Can they make an argument for each particular question that you have significant problems in that area doing the thing as often as reasonably required, safely, to a reasonable standard, and in under twice the normal time.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/personal-independence-payment-assessment-guide-for-assessment-providers
Note however that this guidance is not legislation, and in some cases borders on ridiculous interpretations.
To repost:
The PIP assessment guide is indeed very useful.
However, it's vitally important to understand it's an assessment guide, it's not law.

To be clear - the general principles tend to be accurate - it's just the interpretation of the law may be a bit dodgy.

The DWP tend to end up with guidance shading quite far over to the least generous possible interpretation.

For example - skimming.
3.2.13 - on risks and safety.
'When considering if an activity can be done safely, it is important to consider the risk of a serious adverse effect occuring. However the risk that a serious event may occur is not enough, it has to be likely to occur'.

This is plainly ridiculous.
The legislation says 'safely' - it does not go into details of how the risk should be computed.

The above definition clearly fails to capture what the word 'safely' means.
For example - if I am only 1% likely to break an arm over the course of 20 years when having a bath (say) - it is at least arguable that I can reasonably be said to be able to do it safely.

If however, I have a 5% chance of dying every time I do an activity, I think very few tribunals would accept that I can do this 'safely' - even though the guidance above states I can.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/377/regulation/4 is the actual legislation it's based on.
'(4) In this regulation—

(a)“safely” means in a manner unlikely to cause harm to C or to another person, either during or after completion of the activity;'

You can see where they're coming from.
If you flip that over, you get that to be unsafe 'means in a manner likely to cause harm'.

The problem is that you can't read particular words in isolation, you have to consider them in context.

'unlikely to cause harm' - read as a whole - clearly does not mean 'with a greater than 50% chance of causing harm.'
Because what harm means is not defined.

It needs to be decided on the basis of the whole phrase.
Someone who 51% of the time they get out of a daily bath, has a rash for half an hour is clearly likely to be able to do it safely.
Someone who 1% of the time they get out of a daily bath, dies, is clearly not safe.

To sum up - it's worth asking if you have specific questions about descriptors that on any plausible reading could apply to you - even if the DWP position is they do not.
Unless the DWP has the backing of caselaw in their guidance, the guidance may be pessimistic.


Filling in the forms is a lot easier, for obvious reasons if you have a purely physical issue.