One point short of daily care in PIP.

Bananas123

hello,

please bare in mind, the evidence has to correspond with your functioning AT THE TIME of the assessment.


i.e. "5 years ago" will be dismissed as doesn't give impression... (but will add, if noting chronic problems)

---

there are guidelines, for the judges... it's not as simple as "well that sound like me so where are my points ?".

in my experience you need 1) the evidence 2) corresponding somewhat obivious impairment, then the judges should award points accordingly (emphasis on "award").

---

you sound like you are eligable for award, so i would goto MR and tribunal.

---

don't listen to the "desicion maker" - most of the time it is a pre-prepared statement from a computer.

all you need to consider is - do you truly believe you should have been awarded more points ?, if "yes" then ...enjoy your long long long long wait whilst they get to your case, having tended to all the others that the DM got wrong also...

regards

Ames

I think you're getting confused with the 'psychological distress', bananas123.

The DWP introduced new guidelines that said 'for reasons other than overwhelming psychological distress' for the mobility part of PIP. An upper tier tribunal then ruled that it was unlawful, so they had to remove it again. They're currently looking again at all decisions made when that sentence was in the guidelines, and increasing points accordingly.

As far as I know it's never been applied to any daily living descriptors. Indeed, I'd expect it to be just as unlawful as it was for the mobility one.

Bananas123

SORRY !!! (i am obviously not up to date)

i am going to remove that bit - (good news for me though / probably why i have been waiting over 1y for PIP tribunal....)

thanks / sorry

poppy12345

Bananas123 wrote: »

please bare in mind, the evidence has to correspond with your functioning AT THE TIME of the assessment.

i.e. "5 years ago" will be dismissed as doesn't give impression... (but will add, if noting chronic problems)

---

This is not correct either sorry. This is certainly true if a claimants condition has got worse since their assessment but on this occasion it's not correct.
DWP do advise that evidence is to be dated within the last 2 years yes but anything that's older than that can be used, especially if it's backed up with evidence that's more recent.

poppy12345

What i stated is correct. I've used evidence that's more than 2 years old multiple times, which is always backed up with more recent evidence.

Those transferring from DLA to PIP have used their DLA file as evidence. Lots of people had lifetime awards for DLA and the evidence in their files would have been much older than 2 years.

Bananas123

you are referring to pieces of paper you have enclosed in your "claim pack" (seemingly....) / whereas i am referring to the tribunal (i.e. where the OP is going) / having been to upper tier having found error of law with a judge.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)