Required professional (ie name your consultants) for PIP

JBL2000

Thanks for the input everyone! I didnt mean to cause any probs but all the responses have given me a better idea of what to expect/how to approach/

poppy12345

Spoonie_Turtle said:

poppy12345 said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

poppy12345 said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree with this one.

Fair enough it can't do any *harm* though, can it?

I just don't see the need to add the names if you no longer see those Consultants.

It's more to show that although you don't have much/any professional input now, you have had before. They might assume that no professional input now shows your issues don't affect you that much, whereas if you've had lots of specialist input already it shows something obviously warranted that and it's entirely possible that the reason you no longer see them is that they just can't do any more for you. Whether that is how the assessors or DMs think, I don't know. But that's the reasoning for a lot of people behind wanting to give a clear and full account.

Maybe putting their names isn't necessary (I didn't, just what their occupation was) but perhaps other people applying may strongly feel they want it to very clearly tally with any evidence they send that might mention the names of consultants they saw.

Sorry but i still disagree. Yes, they want to know how your conditions affect you against the PIP descriptors but they certainly don't need or want to know your whole life story. Less is definitely more. Keeping straight to the point is always best.

Spoonie_Turtle

poppy12345 said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

poppy12345 said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

poppy12345 said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree with this one.

Fair enough it can't do any *harm* though, can it?

I just don't see the need to add the names if you no longer see those Consultants.

It's more to show that although you don't have much/any professional input now, you have had before. They might assume that no professional input now shows your issues don't affect you that much, whereas if you've had lots of specialist input already it shows something obviously warranted that and it's entirely possible that the reason you no longer see them is that they just can't do any more for you. Whether that is how the assessors or DMs think, I don't know. But that's the reasoning for a lot of people behind wanting to give a clear and full account.

Maybe putting their names isn't necessary (I didn't, just what their occupation was) but perhaps other people applying may strongly feel they want it to very clearly tally with any evidence they send that might mention the names of consultants they saw.

Sorry but i still disagree. Yes, they want to know how your conditions affect you against the PIP descriptors but they certainly don't need or want to know your whole life story. Less is definitely more. Keeping straight to the point is always best.

Well, on that we definitely can agree!

pmlindyloo

I think it would be useful to put a list of specialists you have seen (in date order) in the Other Information part.  Where it asked for the name of the specialists just put 'please see Other Information.'
I would also send any written evidence from these specialists which detail your autism and the effects it has on your daily life especially if this states anything which says this is an ongoing condition.
My thinking behind this is that, although we would hope that the assessor would understand your autism and how it affects you, experts setting out the 'problems' would 'back up' any examples that you give.
Unfortunately some assessors have no idea about autism.

Nannytone

All of this nitpicking is pretty irrelevant really because they don't routinely contact anyon.
The most important thing is to send them your own evidence of the difficulties you have  and that doesn't have to be medical. It just needs to be relevant to the descriptors.

I can walk perfectly well but I have a guide dog. That evidence is my need for supervision in familiar and unfamiliar places.
At home either fuse specialist bits equipment but on the whole I use things like elastic bands help me distinguish between things.
I also eat my dinner from a large bowl rather than a plate. Again this was used as evidence to the issues I have regarding eating. Sometimes you need to think outside of the box rather than relying on an expert to detail things for you

poppy12345

Nannytone said:

 Sometimes you need to think outside of the box rather than relying on an expert to detail things for you

Indeed and the only person that knows how your conditions affect you is yourself.

Muttleythefrog

poppy12345 said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

poppy12345 said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

poppy12345 said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree with this one.

Fair enough it can't do any *harm* though, can it?

I just don't see the need to add the names if you no longer see those Consultants.

It's more to show that although you don't have much/any professional input now, you have had before. They might assume that no professional input now shows your issues don't affect you that much, whereas if you've had lots of specialist input already it shows something obviously warranted that and it's entirely possible that the reason you no longer see them is that they just can't do any more for you. Whether that is how the assessors or DMs think, I don't know. But that's the reasoning for a lot of people behind wanting to give a clear and full account.

Maybe putting their names isn't necessary (I didn't, just what their occupation was) but perhaps other people applying may strongly feel they want it to very clearly tally with any evidence they send that might mention the names of consultants they saw.

Sorry but i still disagree. Yes, they want to know how your conditions affect you against the PIP descriptors but they certainly don't need or want to know your whole life story. Less is definitely more. Keeping straight to the point is always best.

One way around the discussion is perhaps to refer to historical evidence. That's what I've done in my PIP review... they already have a wealth of professional reports supplied with original claim... so I've pointed to the fact they exist, listed all diagnoses (because they use these to justify the descriptor choices) and re-asserted that there is currently no input from healthcare professionals as all NHS options exhausted and monitoring of condition is done by carer and GP referral as necessary. I share the concerns of others that lack of current medical input could otherwise imply a lack of, or reduced, disability.