Pip Upper Tribunal request, any advice please?!

Mattypompy99

Hi folks,

So stressed! Long story short I lost an appeal for PIP daily living component on a paper based tribunal, I tried a f2f before and it was horrible. I have a long history of depression and social anxiety.

They gave me 6 points. 2 each for washing/making a meal and needing prompting to engage with others effectively contending I do not require at least 'Social Support' to engage with others as in the descriptor 9 (c). I have a sister who texts me to encourage me and the therapist I have been seeing, they do not need to be present apparently.

Fact is I do not talk to anyone due to anxiety almost all the time. I am a very honest person and it's truly upsetting to try and convey this to someone earnestly and not be taken at face value.

I'm truly beside myself with depression. This has been such an emotionally upsetting process of nearly a year and the consequences are very real.

A previous ruling, CSPIP/35/2016 indicates that 'Social Support' can be family/friends or therapist.

In my MR letter I explicitly mentioned I receive 'social support' meaning my sister via text message. I also included a letter from my sister explaining my problems although it didn't mention social support explicitly. I thought it was implicit given the fact she wrote that for me.

My local advice agency thinks I do not have a case due to not explicitly stating the social support I receive to satisfy descriptor 9 c.

I know the UTT can only rule on a point of law, I'm looking for 'inadequate reasons'.

Question is, does anyone have a strategy or approach I may pursue to help myself?

I'm still going to ask for a right to appeal to the UTT from the FTT as I have nothing to lose.

Thank you for your time.

poppy12345

Mattypompy99 wrote: »

Hi folks,

So stressed! Long story short I lost an appeal for PIP daily living component on a paper based tribunal, I tried a f2f before and it was horrible. I have a long history of depression and social anxiety.

They gave me 6 points. 2 each for washing/making a meal and needing prompting to engage with others effectively contending I do not require at least 'Social Support' to engage with others as in the descriptor 9 (c). I have a sister who texts me to encourage me and the therapist I have been seeing, they do not need to be present apparently.

Fact is I do not talk to anyone due to anxiety almost all the time. I am a very honest person and it's truly upsetting to try and convey this to someone earnestly and not be taken at face value.

I'm truly beside myself with depression. This has been such an emotionally upsetting process of nearly a year and the consequences are very real.

A previous ruling, CSPIP/35/2016 indicates that 'Social Support' can be family/friends or therapist.

In my MR letter I explicitly mentioned I receive 'social support' meaning my sister via text message. I also included a letter from my sister explaining my problems although it didn't mention social support explicitly. I thought it was implicit given the fact she wrote that for me.

My local advice agency thinks I do not have a case due to not explicitly stating the social support I receive to satisfy descriptor 9 c.

I know the UTT can only rule on a point of law, I'm looking for 'inadequate reasons'.

Question is, does anyone have a strategy or approach I may pursue to help myself?

I'm still going to ask for a right to appeal to the UTT from the FTT as I have nothing to lose.

Thank you for your time.

How did you expect to recieve points for this when you didn't send evidence to prove what support you actually need? On what grounds do you think an error of law was made here?

I'm sorry but i agree with the advice agency here.

Alice_Holt

Useful info here:
https://healthunlocked.com/fibromyalgia-action-uk/posts/130083431/appealing-to-the-upper-tribunal-against-a-first-tier-tribunal-decision.-go-get-em-tiger
Have you requested the Statement of Reasons from the FTT?
Has your advice agency looked at it?

You can reapply for PIP.
If you do, and find the need to appeal again - I would strongly advise you to attend the hearing. Your verbal evidence would have very important, and you would have been able to expand / clarify / explain points that your written evidence may have been weak on.
What was the reason for not awarding you points for needing prompting to dress when points were awarded for preparing a meal and washing?

Mattypompy99

I obviously wasn't clear in my opening remarks.

I stated to the assessor that I get social support from my family. Of course they did not include that in the assessment report. I also stated explicitly in the MR I receive social support. Of course that was ignored. I also included a letter from my sister stating my problems and the fact she is concerned about me.

The tribunals reasons in the SOR did not justify choosing 9b over 9c, which maybe argued as inadequate reasoning. Indeed there is an UTT ruling to that general effect. I'll try and find it.

Thanks

Mattypompy99

Hi,

The reasons for not awarding the dressing/not dressing was there wasn't anything in the documentation about it. There was though in the initial form. Also they said I reported difficulties. Also they used the usual 'well kempt' at assessment extrapolating that to at all times. They also said I am physically able to dress. The usual stigmatised obliviousness to effects of apathy and demotivation in MH.

Thanks

Mattypompy99

The other thing is that they used against me that I saw a therapist so the social anxiety can't be that bad they postulate. I had anticipatory anxiety for 24 hrs before every appointment. It was also outside the legal 'assessment period'. 'Social support', that's exactly what she did, can be provided by a therapist.Why wasn't that evidence? Absolutely inconsistent and partial. Talk about cherry picking to an agenda.

The tribunal I had in 2016 used the fact I didn't see a therapist as evidence my anxiety wasn't bad enough and awarded 0 points, then I have another one and they used my seeing one against me in the opposite way. Pigs' ear.

Thanks

wanderlust35

First step, if you haven’t done so already, is to request a statement of reasons from HMCTS. Next step is to then go through this document to identify an arguable material error in law. Examples of an error in law are:

- Failure to have regards to material evidence
- Taking into account and being influenced by immaterial evidence, inadequate reasons, unfair procedure, misunderstanding or misconstruction of the law.
- Disregarding a relevant statutory provision.
- Failing to give effect to a binding decision of a superior court.
- Irrationality by the Judge.

It’s important to specify the error of law you are alledging and provide full details in your application to the Judge. Failure to do this will mean your application will likely be refused.

Should your application be successful and an UT Judge agree there has been a material error in law, your case will be referred back to the FTT and will be heard again by a different panel. This whole process is likely to take best part of a year.

If you are intent on appealing to the UT and if you want the best chance of success my advice would be to seek legal advice and representation.

Mattypompy99

Penitent wrote: »

It sounds like you've already chosen a strategy (you're arguing that they've provided inadequate reasons for chosing the descriptor). Are their reasons inadequate or do you just not agree with the reasons given?

That was one of the grounds for my appeal, but in my case they failed to give any reason/evidence for choosing the descriptor they did or for not considering the more appropriate descriptors.

I have their reasoning in the SOR. Pretty scant.

I assume you won your UT appeal?

Thanks for the advice.:beer:

Mattypompy99

wanderlust35 wrote: »

First step, if you haven’t done so already, is to request a statement of reasons from HMCTS. Next step is to then go through this document to identify an arguable material error in law. Examples of an error in law are:

- Failure to have regards to material evidence
- Taking into account and being influenced by immaterial evidence, inadequate reasons, unfair procedure, misunderstanding or misconstruction of the law.
- Disregarding a relevant statutory provision.
- Failing to give effect to a binding decision of a superior court.
- Irrationality by the Judge.

It’s important to specify the error of law you are alledging and provide full details in your application to the Judge. Failure to do this will mean your application will likely be refused.

Should your application be successful and an UT Judge agree there has been a material error in law, your case will be referred back to the FTT and will be heard again by a different panel. This whole process is likely to take best part of a year.

If you are intent on appealing to the UT and if you want the best chance of success my advice would be to seek legal advice and representation.

Thank you for the advice. I'm just about to appeal via the FTT after scrutinizing the SOR and identifying potential errors.
I may have some legal help if that fails and I apply directly to the UTT

Mattypompy99

Penitent wrote: »

Yep. My first FTT was set aside and it's been sent back to be done again. By the time it's reheard, it'll have been about 2 years since I first applied for PIP.

Wow.

That's a long time!

Do you know if I can reapply for PIP whilst my UTT appeal is being processed?

Thank you.

Mattypompy99

Penitent wrote: »

You can. I did. The only problem was the assessment for my new claim was just as full of ignorant tripe as the first one, so I ended up having to appeal that one too. So I currently have two appeals with the FTT: the first one, which was just returned from the UT, and the second one, which is there for the first time. I actually included the UT decision on the first claim with my MR for the second claim, after they applied the same faulty/non-existant reasoning, but they're still making me appeal. The whole process is a bit mental.

What a carry on! Makes one want to give up for the sake of a few extra quid. Well it has me anyway.

Thanks for the remarks.