Does this sound normal, or has my PIP claim been mishandled?

airliner

calcotti said:

airliner said:

MR's can take six weeks at the moment, ..

Six weeks is optimistic in my experience, three months seems typical at the moment.

As to the importance of the assessment report I am of the view, as expressed earlier, that there key points will br referred to in the decision letter and can be challenged and that picking through the report in detail is unnecessary.

I'm not quite sure why either of these two points needed restating.

Some MRs are taking 6 weeks, some 7, some 8, some 9, some 10, some 11, some 12. The point is, the original poster has time to get a health assessors report and make further submissions.

It's up to the original poster to determine if it's within their interests to obtain the health assessors report and in the event they do, to then assess whether it is useful or not.....or to seek out specialist advice about it.

If the original poster wants to know more about the health assessors report I'm more than happy to answer questions about it.

Alice_Holt

airliner said:

poppy12345 said:

airliner said:

In addition to the good advice you've already received....I would request a copy of the health assessors report (PA4) from the DWP.

I disagree with that and it's never a good idea to receive this. The MR request has already been done anyway so at this stage it won't be helpful. If it gets to Tribunal stage it will be in with the "bundle." Though it should be ignored anyway because concentrating on this will not get the OP a PIP award.

Admittedly, the health assessors report is much less useful at tribunal stage, but we are not there yet and the focus should be on the MR.

However, it's also wrong to say the health's assessors report should be 'ignored' beyond the MR stage. If it is wholly inaccurate I would always point this out in my submissions and ask for other evidence to be preferred. Remember, the DWP review the evidence before the tribunal happens and it can be useful to force their eyes away from the health assessors report by undermining it.

It's not uncommon for the decision to be changed before the hearing takes place.

        I'm afraid I can't agree with this.

        In my experience the HCP assessors report is very important in preparing the tribunal submission for a claimant. This is after all the primary document relied on by the DWP to come to their decision (and will be an important document for the tribunal panel).
    We need to see exactly why the HCP, have reached the conclusions they have, and then discuss this with the claimant. Often the HCP has misinterpreted / misunderstood facts or examples given - this needs to be clarified on the claimant's submission.
Sometimes the DWP evidence bundle includes previous assessments, and the disputed assessment is totally inconsistent with these and the claimants PIP form. It is important to highlight this to the tribunal panel, and provide evidence that the claimant's condition and abilities have not improved since their last PIP award.
Sometimes the assessment is indeed wholly inaccurate (e.g. "maintained good eye contact" written in a telephone assessment report), and again this nonsense needs to be highlighted to the tribunal panel.
 Remember that there is a much better chance of success at the independent tribunal, than at the DWP reconsideration,
https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/4359-latest-pip-statistics-the-good-and-the-bad

I wouldn't dream of writing a claimant's tribunal submission without close examination of their assessment report, 


   I am more equivocal about the claimant obtaining the report for the MR stage. But often this is not practical due to time pressures. I tend to calcotti's view that (on the whole) the decision notice gives sufficient info for the MR.
  

airliner

Alice_Holt said:

airliner said:

poppy12345 said:

airliner said:

In addition to the good advice you've already received....I would request a copy of the health assessors report (PA4) from the DWP.

I disagree with that and it's never a good idea to receive this. The MR request has already been done anyway so at this stage it won't be helpful. If it gets to Tribunal stage it will be in with the "bundle." Though it should be ignored anyway because concentrating on this will not get the OP a PIP award.

Admittedly, the health assessors report is much less useful at tribunal stage, but we are not there yet and the focus should be on the MR.

However, it's also wrong to say the health's assessors report should be 'ignored' beyond the MR stage. If it is wholly inaccurate I would always point this out in my submissions and ask for other evidence to be preferred. Remember, the DWP review the evidence before the tribunal happens and it can be useful to force their eyes away from the health assessors report by undermining it.

It's not uncommon for the decision to be changed before the hearing takes place.

        I'm afraid I can't agree with this.

        In my experience the HCP assessors report is very important in preparing the tribunal submission for a claimant. This is after all the primary document relied on by the DWP to come to their decision (and will be an important document for the tribunal panel).
    We need to see exactly why the HCP, have reached the conclusions they have, and then discuss this with the claimant. Often the HCP has misinterpreted / misunderstood facts or examples given - this needs to be clarified on the claimant's submission.
Sometimes the DWP evidence bundle includes previous assessments, and the disputed assessment is totally inconsistent with these and the claimants PIP form. It is important to highlight this to the tribunal panel, and provide evidence that the claimant's condition and abilities have not improved since their last PIP award.
Sometimes the assessment is indeed wholly inaccurate (e.g. "maintained good eye contact" written in a telephone assessment report), and again this nonsense needs to be highlighted to the tribunal panel.
 Remember that there is a much better chance of success at the independent tribunal, than at the DWP reconsideration,
https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/4359-latest-pip-statistics-the-good-and-the-bad

I wouldn't dream of writing a claimant's tribunal submission without close examination of their assessment report, 


   I am more equivocal about the claimant obtaining the report for the MR stage. But often this is not practical due to time pressures. I tend to calcotti's view that (on the whole) the decision notice gives sufficient info for the MR.
  

Edit - I can see you have quoted Poppy too, so my comment is withdrawn as we are on the same page about health assessors reports and tribunal submissions.

Muttleythefrog

Agree with airliner/Alice. The HCP's report (if assessed or likely short version if not) is likely the primary evidence used in decision and to ignore it (in mind at least) when challenging decision would surely be ill advised.... we've even seen cases (can't recall if for PIP or ESA) on MSE where the HCP report contained a technical error like awarding a zero point scoring descriptor while justifying that choice with a literal description of a point scoring descriptor - meaning there was a clear fundamental error in the report of undetermined nature that the DWP DM relied on and that needs to be clarified. We've also seen such reports containing descriptions or references to illnesses and disabilities that the claimant does not have familiarity with or cannot explain to the point they wonder if the report is about them. At tribunal stage you would imagine the panel will examine in some detail the PA4 even if they conclude it is wholly unreliable as evidence for consideration. I do agree that to focus too much on the report in making a case for what descriptors should be selected could be an error of distraction... but it could be useful to guide as to where weakness in explanation exists as to problems experienced.