PIP Mandatory Reconsideration

Ginsipper007

Hi, yes, this is exactly what I did, i.e. provided information about the conditions themselves, as the assessors seemed to know nothing about them. I took each statement the assessors made, pointed out how these weren't consistent with documented cases / research / the DSM and NHS / etc, sent this evidence, i.e. about the conditions rather than anything additional to do with the individuals, and hey presto. I also took the Act itself and case law arising from Appeals / Tribunal apart, to show how they (the DWP) weren't legally compliant.

Incidentally, alongside this, I crunched the numbers from the ONS re: how many people are refused / successful in first application > at MR > pre-Appeal > Appeal, and they're horrific. Something like 50% of claimants drop their claim following initial refusal but, of those who fight on, 70%+ are eventually successful. And indeed, this is what happened to 2/3 I was dealing with, i.e. they'd just given up when they'd been initially refused a couple of years ago and so we put in fresh claims. Fresh, rather than refreshed claims, seem to be the problem ...

In other words, the issue appears to be massive - at least according to the data from ONS. We really have no idea about how many of those 50% who drop out after initial refusals are entitled. It would be a huge leap to think none of them, and they become invisible as they never get as far as turning to the internet for help. But it says something that over 70% of those who continue their claims are successful. My experience is that wrong decisions are being made on the basis of assessors' reports written by people who have virtually no understanding of mental health conditions, e.g. schizophrenia, BPD, psychosis induced anxiety, etc. And the very people with the greatest need are those who will really struggle to fight their way through this moras of disregard.

poppy12345

CLee said:

Hi, yes, this is exactly what I did, i.e. provided information about the conditions themselves, as the assessors seemed to know nothing about them. I took each statement the assessors made, pointed out how these weren't consistent with documented cases / research / the DSM and NHS / etc, sent this evidence, i.e. about the conditions rather than anything additional to do with the individuals,

I'm gobsmacked how this helped because PIP isn't about a diagnosis, it's how those conditions affect your ability to do daily activities based on the PIP descriptors. Everyone is affected differently by these conditions, you never have 2 people the same. Which is why information from the internet isn't evidence.

Was the information actually used to make a decision?

Spoonie_Turtle

CLee said:

Hi, yes, this is exactly what I did, i.e. provided information about the conditions themselves, as the assessors seemed to know nothing about them. I took each statement the assessors made, pointed out how these weren't consistent with documented cases / research / the DSM and NHS / etc, sent this evidence, i.e. about the conditions rather than anything additional to do with the individuals, and hey presto. I also took the Act itself and case law arising from Appeals / Tribunal apart, to show how they (the DWP) weren't legally compliant.

Incidentally, alongside this, I crunched the numbers from the ONS ...

In other words, the issue appears to be massive - at least according to the data from ONS. ...

That's a huge amount of effort!  Possibly slightly unnecessary though.  I personally had to explain why the conclusions my assessor drew were inaccurate, and how my condition meant that what I said was not in fact lying.  Beyond that, I didn't say anything that was new to my claim - in fact most of it was reiterating what I'd said on my form, but only the pertinent bits to the issues I was challenging.

We know the problem is systemic, the fact that Scotland are making their own surely shows that the DWP PIP process is not fit for purpose - but we do what we can, benefits advisers do what they can; it is a crying shame that not everyone knows where they can turn out even has anywhere they can turn (and sadly that's often the most vulnerable people).  It is indeed outrageous, but not very many of us can fight to change the system on top of whatever other battles we have.

Ginsipper007

poppy12345 said:

CLee said:

Hi, yes, this is exactly what I did, i.e. provided information about the conditions themselves, as the assessors seemed to know nothing about them. I took each statement the assessors made, pointed out how these weren't consistent with documented cases / research / the DSM and NHS / etc, sent this evidence, i.e. about the conditions rather than anything additional to do with the individuals,

I'm gobsmacked how this helped because PIP isn't about a diagnosis, it's how those conditions affect your ability to do daily activities based on the PIP descriptors. Everyone is affected differently by these conditions, you never have 2 people the same. Which is why information from the internet isn't evidence.

Was the information actually used to make a decision?

I think we might be talking at cross purposes, perhaps an example would be useful.  Assessor notes that the claimant has no cognitive impairment, multiple diagnoses require that the claimant has cognitive impairment (otherwise the diagnoses wouldn't stand), ergo, if the claimant has the diagnoses, then it follows that they have the cognitive impairment.  Further, this cognitive impairment impacts on their ability to carry out daily activities safely, repeatedly, within a reasonable timeframe, etc, referring back to the original application that demonstrates / details these struggles.  This is what got me.  That the assessor was making statements which were flat out wrong, i.e. started from a premis that was incorrect in the first place.  They presented opinion.  I countered this with fact.  Subjective -v- objective.  In the end, legally, objective will always win out.

In terms of 'information from the internet,' in a previous life I was a lawyer working in medical negligence, now I work in an academic clinical research facility alongside NHS partners.  I have access to a lot of material and expertise.  That's the information I used.  I understand how the burden of proof operates.

And presumably this is what was used to make the decision.  No other evidence was sought or produced.

In short form, this is my problem.  That assessor was able to make claims which were factually incorrect and decisions followed from these claims in a kind of twisted logic.  The DWP clearly supports some sort of system that is wholly, or partly, super subjective.  Where it runs into issues is when it comes up against the law, because that isn't about opinion, but instead about fact.  Unfortunately, the way it stands at the moment, law (fact) doesn't come into it until the final hurdle - Tribunal / Appeal.  I think the whole thing is upside down / the wrong way round.

Ginsipper007

Spoonie_Turtle said:

CLee said:

Hi, yes, this is exactly what I did, i.e. provided information about the conditions themselves, as the assessors seemed to know nothing about them. I took each statement the assessors made, pointed out how these weren't consistent with documented cases / research / the DSM and NHS / etc, sent this evidence, i.e. about the conditions rather than anything additional to do with the individuals, and hey presto. I also took the Act itself and case law arising from Appeals / Tribunal apart, to show how they (the DWP) weren't legally compliant.

Incidentally, alongside this, I crunched the numbers from the ONS ...

In other words, the issue appears to be massive - at least according to the data from ONS. ...

That's a huge amount of effort!  Possibly slightly unnecessary though.  I personally had to explain why the conclusions my assessor drew were inaccurate, and how my condition meant that what I said was not in fact lying.  Beyond that, I didn't say anything that was new to my claim - in fact most of it was reiterating what I'd said on my form, but only the pertinent bits to the issues I was challenging.

We know the problem is systemic, the fact that Scotland are making their own surely shows that the DWP PIP process is not fit for purpose - but we do what we can, benefits advisers do what they can; it is a crying shame that not everyone knows where they can turn out even has anywhere they can turn (and sadly that's often the most vulnerable people).  It is indeed outrageous, but not very many of us can fight to change the system on top of whatever other battles we have.

I think you have it there, Spoonie, being able to demonstrate how the conclusions don't fit with what's known about the conditions themselves.  I fully expected to have to go to Tribunal / Appeal, and so did the prep on that basis, but you're right probably overkill for the MR.

Re: the system, it's a mess.  I guess what brought me up short is that I'm relatively accustomed to it, my adult son is severely disabled / was born with a life limiting and life threatening condition.  Because he has a very easy to understand label (the name of his condition), he's never run into any issues around benefits, entitlement, etc.  Yet!  But I agree about fighting to change the system on top of all the other battles.  I was just furious, and I channelled the anger in this case.  It shouldn't be this way.  I'm going to contact my local MP in the near future about it all, because I have no more energy to take this forward or help anyone else.

Best wishes

CosmoChic

Ginsipper007 said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

CLee said:

Hi, yes, this is exactly what I did, i.e. provided information about the conditions themselves, as the assessors seemed to know nothing about them. I took each statement the assessors made, pointed out how these weren't consistent with documented cases / research / the DSM and NHS / etc, sent this evidence, i.e. about the conditions rather than anything additional to do with the individuals, and hey presto. I also took the Act itself and case law arising from Appeals / Tribunal apart, to show how they (the DWP) weren't legally compliant.

Incidentally, alongside this, I crunched the numbers from the ONS ...

In other words, the issue appears to be massive - at least according to the data from ONS. ...

That's a huge amount of effort!  Possibly slightly unnecessary though.  I personally had to explain why the conclusions my assessor drew were inaccurate, and how my condition meant that what I said was not in fact lying.  Beyond that, I didn't say anything that was new to my claim - in fact most of it was reiterating what I'd said on my form, but only the pertinent bits to the issues I was challenging.

We know the problem is systemic, the fact that Scotland are making their own surely shows that the DWP PIP process is not fit for purpose - but we do what we can, benefits advisers do what they can; it is a crying shame that not everyone knows where they can turn out even has anywhere they can turn (and sadly that's often the most vulnerable people).  It is indeed outrageous, but not very many of us can fight to change the system on top of whatever other battles we have.

I think you have it there, Spoonie, being able to demonstrate how the conclusions don't fit with what's known about the conditions themselves.  I fully expected to have to go to Tribunal / Appeal, and so did the prep on that basis, but you're right probably overkill for the MR.

Re: the system, it's a mess.  I guess what brought me up short is that I'm relatively accustomed to it, my adult son is severely disabled / was born with a life limiting and life threatening condition.  Because he has a very easy to understand label (the name of his condition), he's never run into any issues around benefits, entitlement, etc.  Yet!  But I agree about fighting to change the system on top of all the other battles.  I was just furious, and I channelled the anger in this case.  It shouldn't be this way.  I'm going to contact my local MP in the near future about it all, because I have no more energy to take this forward or help anyone else.

Best wishes

I agree with you regarding subjectivety v objectivety.  I was told I do not experience anxiety as I am not prescribed medication specifically for that condition.  I reminded the DM my anxiety is a long-term and well-documented symptom of one of my conditions. 

I also noted that one of my medications, only available via prescription from a specialist for another entirely unrelated condition, has the recognised effect of reducing anxiety in patients.  Finally, I noted my GP and I had thoroughly discussed the anxiety-reducing effect of the specialist's medication because, as a result of being prescribed that, my GP had to remove my original (specifically prescribed) anxiety medication due to contraindication. 

However, I did not provide any additional information in terms of documents etc.  In the event I had  had to proceed to Tribunal, I would have sought letters from both my GP and the specialist confirming my understanding of the medications I am prescribed and their expected effects.  

All of this merely underlines the point we, our GPs and our consultants have a much greater understanding of our conditions  than the vast majority of DWP assessors.  I'm fortunate, in that I live in Scotland, and we will have a new process coming into force next year.  It's hoped face-to-face interviews will be the exception rather than the rule.  Fingers crossed.