Mr

Muttleythefrog

skye_ wrote: »

Any ideas why I got the toilet points lol? I said I didn't have any problems at all using it?

I would look at the descriptor they apply and most importantly the justification.. then check what you wrote on PIP2 form for the activity.. and for any relevant information in additional evidence you might have supplied. Failing that... well... hit and miss process sadly... it seems only reasonable to assume now and again they'll declare a disability the claimant has never claimed to have. For the WCA of ESA I've even seen one claimant report that their assessment report said the assessor found no evidence of an illness that the claimant had never ever claimed to have had... I suppose you could call that accurate judgement but the reality is they probably were a bit clueless regarding the claimant.

antrobus

skye_ wrote: »

Any ideas why I got the toilet points lol? I said I didn't have any problems at all using it?

Two points would be either; Needs to use an aid or appliance to be able to manage toilet needs or incontinence, or Needs supervision or prompting to be able to manage toilet needs.

Take your pick.

Muttleythefrog wrote: »

I would look at the descriptor they apply and most importantly the justification.. then check what you wrote on ESA50 for the activity....

I think you mean PIP2.

Muttleythefrog

antrobus wrote: »

Two points would be either; Needs to use an aid or appliance to be able to manage toilet needs or incontinence, or Needs supervision or prompting to be able to manage toilet needs.

Take your pick.

I think you mean PIP2.

I hope the Op didn't spill a can of pop on the floor during the assessment :eek:

Thanks... corrected.

skye_

Nope, don't have any of these problem lol. Also I got 8 points for mobility.. I can walk no more than 50m?! This is a lot of rubbish also.. I don't have any problems walking so I'm a bit confused.

50Twuncle

Penitent wrote: »

It genuinely sounds like the assessor has mixed up your report with someone else's. Maybe ask them to check this as part of the MR, pointing out the inconsistences with what you're claiming for?

I had similar - 15 years ago, when I applied for DLA - I was given max mobiliity and max care allowance - this was reduced to zero both after 2 months - I asked for an explanation (via my MP) and ended up with mid care component - no explanation was given - so I guess that there was a mix up between applications !!

skye_

Oh Lordy, I'm not sure what to do now. They might want to reassess me and that's a lot of stress and I might end up losing the points I have

Muttleythefrog

skye_ wrote: »

Oh Lordy, I'm not sure what to do now. They might want to reassess me and that's a lot of stress and I might end up losing the points I have

Hmmm... so it sounds like there is signfiicant error.. possibly including to your favour. I assume you have the assessment report as well as the decision letter? Check they correleate with each other then at least you know for sure the source of the inaccuracies. Make sure the report names you as the claimant and relates to the date of your assessment.

Then as above... you're in a tricky situation.. I'd be inclined to construct an entirely honest and accurate MR request highlighting the descriptors that should apply. If you're going to challenge scoring descriptors that you feel do not apply then hopefully that will provoke them to consider you might actually be more reliable than the (presumed) assessment report. It could be up in the air... they can be very dismissive... even concessions I made in my extensive MR request were utterly ignored... however an appeal tribunal if you were to appear would probably down the line be interested to listen to your actual claims of disability with regard to PIP.

Ultimately I would challenge this decision for 2 reasons... first you were already considering doing so so presumably feel it isn't a satisfactory award. ANd secondly in future you'll likely need to at least declare at reassessment junctures that your disabilities remain unchanged... which would be an absurdity if they were so inaccurately assessed to begin with. However you may get other advice. In the circumstances.. given you're probably atypical in circumstance... I would say figures for MR or appeal of limited use to evaluate any reasoned course of action... you're at the periphery of cases I would suggest. I'd simply say you're more likely to get accurate outcome from appeal tribunal but you'd need to make a MR first to get to that.

poppy12345

skye_ wrote: »

Nope, don't have any of these problem lol. Also I got 8 points for mobility.. I can walk no more than 50m?! This is a lot of rubbish also.. I don't have any problems walking so I'm a bit confused.

This and the other 2 points you were awarded to toilet use. surely means they have you mixed up with someone else. If it was me i wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing i got 8 points for something when i don't have any issues or difficulties with it :eek: It would be MR route for me pointing out those 2 things and what you think you SHOULD have been awarded there wouldn't be any doubts in my mind. I have enough problems sleeping as it is, this would mean i'd never sleep.

50Twuncle

I don't know how you stand LEGALLY - When an overpayment has been made and it is DWP's fault - although you are clearly aware of the fact that an overpayment is being made ........

They will no doubt require most (if not all) of the overpayment back - so don't go on a spending spree !

Muttleythefrog

50Twuncle wrote: »

I don't know how you stand LEGALLY - When an overpayment has been made and it is DWP's fault - although you are clearly aware of the fact that an overpayment is being made ........

They will no doubt require most (if not all) of the overpayment back - so don't go on a spending spree !

I'm not sure they're aware of that... are they? They may be arguing in reconsideration (and maybe later appeal) that they should get a better award.... after all that's how the thread began and then we were led down a path of confusion. There is some caution though to exercised here as of course reconsideration or appeal decisions could impose a poorer award in place of the original decision. I would on reflection suggest the Op examine the PA4 assessment report (I strongly urge them to request it from DWP without delay if they have not got a copy yet... time is ticking and it is a crucial document)... and get a handle on whether this could indeed be a mix up with someone else... I would imagine there'd be some things even in a terribly inaccurate report that should ring true with a sane claimant... some of the facts obtained in regard to history for example... a PA4 report should be packed with statements of facts. If nothing rings true or only general things do like 'watches a lot of TV in the day' then I would be inclined to think this could be a mistake... possibly a result of mal admin... failures to follow protocol.

We know that these assessments (and for ESA) can be extremely inaccurate at times and it is far from uncommon for claimants to up front wrestle with the idea their assessment report might be mixed up with someone else's. I've seen that perhaps a handful of times on MSE alone in passing. There is of course always a small chance a claimant is utterly clueless about the truth of their circumstances and as a result says things which are not true... don't think that applies here although I do note an illogical or disordered approach of the Op to factual situations in this thread alone. Either which way it does seem to me a reconsideration is a likely next step and hopefully a DWP DM will start taking seriously the role of examining conflicting evidence. In the end a DWP DM may do as most do.. return the same decision at reconsideration despite anomalies or error being pointed out.. that's what happened to me. An appeal tribunal may be much more open to examining all evidence and discounting clear nonsense.