some questiosn regarding appeals

damino

damino wrote: »

With a benefits claim from some years ago, I contacted a solicitor via legal aid for an appeal (which was available at the time for benefits claims), and it never went to tribunal. The DWP accepted that letter, gave me the award, and decided they didn't want to go to tribunal.

How is it possible for that to have happened, and can that (them deciding not to go to tribunal after I appeal), stlll happen nowadays?

That (getting another appeal or reconsideration and appeal, from a current claim), may be useful if I get new medical evidence... after a failed appeal.

Though if I don't agree with what a pip clinician wrote down at a pip assessment I attended. Like if I think it is not what I said, and they insist it was (despite me and my advocate's word saying otherwise), and I don't have a recording, 'cos I forgot to take the recording equipment that I bought, from my bag, then I think it's reasonable to think that the same thing is likely to not happen at another clinician's assessment and i'll ensure to record it next time. (Also on reflection I think I could have explained myself better in one part, I failed to elaborate more when I should have) And, that old report won't be there in a fresh claim, so that'd be an advantage of a fresh claim, in the event that the appeal doesn't work out (or the unlikely event that an appeal gives me a lower award than I have).

rockingbilly

damino wrote: »

With a benefits claim from some years ago, I contacted a solicitor via legal aid for an appeal (which was available at the time for benefits claims), and it never went to tribunal. The DWP accepted that letter, gave me the award, and decided they didn't want to go to tribunal.

How is it possible for that to have happened, and can that (them deciding not to go to tribunal after I appeal), stlll happen nowadays?

That is one of the reasons that they removed legal aid for benefit cases - public money being used to fight for more public money.

damino

rockingbilly wrote: »

That is one of the reasons that they removed legal aid for benefit cases - public money being used to fight for more public money.

yes ok though i'm not asking why they removed legal aid for that (though legal aid may still be possible for upper tribunal cases so if an appeal goes to second stage i.e. regarding an argument re them erring in law, but anyhow, I haven't asked why they removed legal aid for this/that)

rockingbilly

damino wrote: »

With a benefits claim from some years ago, I contacted a solicitor via legal aid for an appeal (which was available at the time for benefits claims), and it never went to tribunal. The DWP accepted that letter, gave me the award, and decided they didn't want to go to tribunal.

How is it possible for that to have happened, and can that (them deciding not to go to tribunal after I appeal), stlll happen nowadays?

damino wrote: »

yes ok though i'm not asking why they removed legal aid for that (though legal aid may still be possible for upper tribunal cases so if an appeal goes to second stage i.e. regarding an argument re them erring in law, but anyhow, I haven't asked why they removed legal aid for this/that)

OK I am not making myself clear.
How is it possible for that to have happened? Because the DWP believed that with that level of support, experience and legal training they would likely lose the case at a Tribunal
can that (them deciding not to go to tribunal after I appeal), stlll happen nowadays? Most unlikely for the same reason. When the DWP are facing legal representation of that level they become more aware that it is more likely that they will lose. As legal aid has now been removed the DWP know that you are less likely to be professionally represented and as such will fight the appeal in the belief that they will win.

Bogalot

damino wrote: »

That (getting another appeal or reconsideration and appeal, from a current claim), may be useful if I get new medical evidence... after a failed appeal.

Though if I don't agree with what a pip clinician wrote down at a pip assessment I attended. Like if I think it is not what I said, and they insist it was (despite me and my advocate's word saying otherwise), and I don't have a recording, 'cos I forgot to take the recording equipment that I bought, from my bag, then I think it's reasonable to think that the same thing is likely to not happen at another clinician's assessment and i'll ensure to record it next time. (Also on reflection I think I could have explained myself better in one part, I failed to elaborate more when I should have) And, that old report won't be there in a fresh claim, so that'd be an advantage of a fresh claim, in the event that the appeal doesn't work out (or the unlikely event that an appeal gives me a lower award than I have).

This thread may fill in some of the gaps in OP's story.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5554002

It is an interesting lesson for those that think they can "tailor" their answers to gain points. The clinician will quite rightly report their observations and not simply go on what the claimant says.

damino

Bogalot wrote: »

This thread may fill in some of the gaps in OP's story.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5554002

It is an interesting lesson for those that think they can "tailor" their answers to gain points. The clinician will quite rightly report their observations and not simply go on what the claimant says.

@Bogalot You're misrepresenting that other thread you've linked to, and not trying to help me. In that thread you linked to, the clinician claimed that I said something I did not say.. And I have an advocate that was with me at the time that will support me on that, that I definitely did not say what the clinician claimed I said. So what exactly makes you come out attacking me for this and claiming that i've tailored something, and makes you want to sabotage this thread by changing the subject to your misrepresentation of that other thread, when it's not what I was asking about?

If you want to try to attack me for that or discuss that, then i'd prefer you do it in that other thread rather than here.

Bogalot

damino wrote: »

@Bogalot You're misrepresenting things and not trying to help me. In that thread you linked to, the clinician claimed that I said something I did not say.. And I have an advocate that was with me at the time that will support me on that, that I definitely did not say what the clinician claimed I said. So what exactly makes you come out attacking me for this and claiming that i've tailored something, and makes you want to sabotage this thread by changing the subject to your misrepresentation of that other thread, when it's not what I was asking about?

If you want to try to attack me for that or discuss that, then i'd prefer you do it in that other thread rather than here.

That thread I linked to is what you are talking about. People have asked you for background and you have skirted around their questions. We can't help without the full picture.

Unfortunately the only misrepresentation here is what you said at your assessment, and the assessor picked up on that. The clinician gives their clinical opinion according to their observations - and that may not be favourable when what you say is contradictory (and continues to be so).

Do you still claim to not know who the Prime Minister is?

damino

Bogalot wrote: »

That thread I linked to is what you are talking about. People have asked you for background and you have skirted around their questions. We can't help without the full picture.

Unfortunately the only misrepresentation here is what you said at your assessment, and the assessor picked up on that. The clinician gives their clinical opinion according to their observations - and that may not be favourable when what you say is contradictory (and continues to be so).

Do you still claim to not know who the Prime Minister is?

@Bogalot

You're misrepresenting things all the time.

The prime minister question is completely irrelevant. Yes I do know since then(after having been asked directly), and she hadn't been PM for long, and I found out shortly after. And on that question she didn't misrepresent me in the sense of writing something that I did not say. I think she didn't even write anything regarding that question in the report. So that question is totally irrelevant, you're just trying to use it to mock or attack me.

And I was not taking issue with an observation she made. So again you misrepresent things completely in order to attack me.

I was taking issue with the clinician claiming I said something that I did not say and the advocate with me agrees I did not say.

Again, if you want to attack me on that, or discuss that, then can you do it in that thread?

I have only asked general questions here. Not specific to my particular case. Not specific to anything beyond the facts that it's a PIP claim, just a general question regarding appeals.

damino

rockingbilly wrote: »

can that (them deciding not to go to tribunal after I appeal), stlll happen nowadays?[/I][/B] Most unlikely for the same reason. When the DWP are facing legal representation of that level they become more aware that it is more likely that they will lose. As legal aid has now been removed the DWP know that you are less likely to be professionally represented and as such will fight the appeal in the belief that they will win.

You might not have understood me correctly..

I was told that there's another reason why it would happen then but not now. (And this affects people whether they are represented professionally or not. An administrator from a solicitor that people often used in the past via legal aid, told me about this change that affects people even when they are professionally represented).

That in the past the appeal request would go to the DWP so the DWP would see it first and decide whether to go ahead with the tribunal.

Whereas now it goes straight to the tribunal.

Do you see how that'd affect people whether they are professionally represented or whether they are not? The appeal request , they say, doesn't go to the DWP anymore, it goes straight to the appeals tribunal. So hence the administrator for a solicitor that does that work said it's less likely to be rejected before a tribunal.

Have you ever heard of anything like that?

Alice_Holt

damino wrote: »

You might not have understood me correctly..
That in the past the appeal request would go to the DWP
Have you ever heard of anything like that?

Please look at post 11. Have you read this http://www.advicenow.org.uk/guides/how-win-pip-appeal yet?

The appeal process is now 2 stage:
The MR goes to the DWP
If the DWP don't change their decision you then have to appeal separately to the tribunal service on an SSCS1 form.
This is all explained in the PIP appeal guide. Have you read it?

The crux for you is:
For an enhanced award you need 12 points. Where do you think the additional points should have been scored to bring you to 12 points. If you have say, 8 points (which gives you a standard award), and think you should have been awarded 2 more points - then appealing is dangerous because you can't get to the enhanced rate and you are placing your existing award at risk. A tribunal is more likely to take an award away if they think the appellant is wasting their time, is not a credible witness, and does not have supporting evidence backing up their current award.

I can only generalise because of the lack of any detail.

Think very, very carefully before embarking on an appeal. At the very least get advice from your local CAB.

Have you looked at and understood the links I provided in post 11?
It would be helpful if you could answer this as I fear you have been distracted by rockingbilly, (or just tick the box below this post to confirm you have read it).