PIP was 2nd claim with new conditions but from 15 April 2025 new 3rd claim as advised.

Muttleythefrog

tifo said:

"Just quickly going through this... I've never seen a complaint response so interesting to see elements".

What do you mean?
.

I mean I've never seen material from a complaint response from one of the disability assessment companies... so this was a first glimpse for me given you quoted some of your case.

tifo

Muttleythefrog said:

tifo said:

"Just quickly going through this... I've never seen a complaint response so interesting to see elements".

What do you mean?
.

I mean I've never seen material from a complaint response from one of the disability assessment companies... so this was a first glimpse for me given you quoted some of your case.

Ah ok, no probs. I get what you mean now.

peteuk

tifo said:

peteuk said:
 

To hold and maintain a drivers licence you need to be able to see 25 meters in front of you.  If a claimant says Im blind cant see more than 10 meters, then the question is have you been advised to surender your licence.  The evidence of still holding a licence is greater than the claimant saying they can only see 10 meters.   If this backed up with opticians reports, opthamology etc...if it is then the balance swings back. 

Just because you say something doesnt mean its going to be taken as true.  

You suffer with OCD - which I get youve put up with and havent mentioned it to a doctor.  So the fact that there is no diaagnosis, no specialist input, no medication etc etc.  Means on balance your OCD doesnt hit the threashold for PIP.  I had to write that alot in many PIP assessments, I get it (hence I left) its frustrating...

I understand what you say about driving license, and it comes from your experiences, what I don't understand and which seems to be said here and in the report is why someone with a driving license has to drive all the time or a medical professional has to tell them to surrender it. Why can't I not drive when I'm not able to and only drive when I can which is what I say? Thus I still don't understand how those on PIP have a driving license and especially those with a motability car need it to drive. I may be naive in this but I just don't get it.

My eye condition is in my blind eye and vision is good in my other eye, any pains etc are in the affected eye and related headaches/migraines etc. My gout is in my feet and knees, the osteoarthritis is in my knee. My anxiety is in my head as is my OCD. I don't need to be able to mix with people to be able to drive, I'm on my own in the safety of my car. I prefer being alone than with others. On the times I'm not able to drive safely I don't. Thus I don't understand why I cannot drive when I can. Putting aside majority/minority of days why can't I drive for, say, 4 months of the year altogether (which is what I probably do anyway) or 7 months of the year?

I hope you understand what I'm saying above.

Regarding OCD and anxiety, I'll go see my GP and there will be a record as well as medication, the conditions are quiet disabling for me and I've been coping. I'm not doing this for another PIP claim but correcting a mistake. Like I said, I only mentioned OCD because it came up in the assessment. I already wrote about being anxious etc and about mixing with people in the previous PIP claim in 2001 and the MR and tribunal. I now realise it was discounted because of no medical record but at that time I saw it as part of my depression which was diagnosed and to me anxiety was a part of that. So it's only OCD which is the 'new condition' for PIP though anxiety needs it's own record.

Again I hope you can understand what I mean above.

In fact I've been meaning to speak with my GP for anxiety since last year January 2024 when my partner was diagnosed with MADD and the medication changed to fluoxetine tablets. She's been on depression tablets for many years. She got 0 points on her first PIP claim in summer of last year and didn't pursue it further.

At that time I thought I suffer from most of and more than the symptoms she described.

But, that's just me and my delays where I don't do things until the last moment. Had I don't it last year (and I had no intention of doing another PIP claim then) I'd be in a better position now.

There are certain conditions that would lead to either a HCP advising you to surrender your licence or which you are to declare to DVLA and they will remove your licence from you.  Loss of vision is one of them, if your pulled over and the police think there is a problem with your eyesight they can ask you to undertake a road side vision test.  It’s the same as the one at the start of your test.    Fail and the police can charge you. 

Theres a difference between you saying your not able to drive and a HCP saying dont drive.  Driving doesnt have to be the majority of the time, once a week to the supermarket is enough to discredit your claim of gout/arthritis for the majority of the time, without further evidence to support what your saying.  Driving/drivers licence was the biggest trap I spotted in PIP assessing.   It opens all sorts of discussions, parking (distance from car to door, ability to plan a route, grip, ability to learn unless theres been a significant injury which changes this etc etc) 

Muttleythefrog

tifo said:

HillStreetBlues said:

born_again said:

Something that just clicked on a previous post. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81312302/#Comment_81312302

When you got this assessment appointment. You said you wanted it to be a face to face rather than phone. Which I think can now be back in their offices, rather than at your home.
So given you are saying you can't mix with people & OCD added in at the last second, would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. (sorry to be so blunt)

Given a phone interview negates meeting other people & going to a area used by other people.

That would depend.
When I have an assessment I want it to be face to face, lot easier for me to have a call, but I want them to see how hard it is.

I was thinking the same. I thought I can get my points across better face to face than telephone.

Possibly... but it'd also carry significant risks in your case I would think... because there are very few people with OCD reported symptoms you claim who would elect under any circumstances to place themselves into high anxiety situations where they will lose control of events rather than avoid such. I fought and have repeatedly fought to avoid face to face assessments... they've made me severely unwell every time and put lives at risk... that is now recognised and so in recent times they've been avoided. You'd carry risk that more of your behaviour can be observed including responses to anxiety... ability to mobilise etc... and extrapolations can similarly be wild... I was observed to unaided rise from a waiting room seat and walk to the assessment room (by superwoman because she did it through a wall via eyes in the back of her head!) They would almost certainly ask about how you had got to the assessment and how that journey was... they may even do it in an almost friendly way to make you relaxed and think they're just being polite and friendly. 'Oh yes my journey here was okay' - great so no problems planning and undertaking a journey then... 'did you drive here today'.. yes... okay there's something else to discredit some claimed disabilities.... you may find zero points scoring descriptors applied before you even sit down for assessment.

I am not sure I understand your driving licence issue and I admit as a non driver I am not fully aware of the requirements for driving... but the idea you are medically fit to drive some of the time (as decided by you) but not others sounds odd to me and it sounds like they dismissed anything beyond 'you have a licence and you drive time to time so you can drive'. Gout problems/osteoarthritis (relating to moving the lower limbs/knees) and eye problems may be dismissed by the ability to drive unless you can show for the majority of the time you can't drive... but then would you be unfit to have a licence (that's a question others will be far better placed to comment on)? 

Just picking up what I can so you understand issues you may be facing.
"I prefer being alone than with others." - this is a personal choice they may well conclude... rather than disability or clinically underpinned. One would have to impose a good explanation as to why it is not... but if an assessor hears the words choose or prefer I imagine they're being set an easy course for opinion of no disability.

"Thus I still don't understand how those on PIP have a driving license and especially those with a Motability car need it to drive. I may be naive in this but I just don't get it." - because their disabilities may not affect driving or they may have adaptations that enable such. They may not even be the Motability car driver. In general terms driving licence or ability to drive may only offer limited evidence to ability to perform tasks... I mean it doesn't really tell you about ability to make budgeting decisions, take medication, get dressed or make or eat food as example... and if they have used driving licence as a sole fact to give opinion there is no disablement in relation to such activities then I would be surprised and it would be quite flawed a view I would say. In what you quote they seem to take you away from such thinking by indicating more than one piece of evidence is used for opinion. 

"I see it the same as a GP or hospital appointment. I'm not 'mixing' with people because I don't have to interact with them. I'm just sitting there for an appointment. I can wash my hands and wipe down my clothes when I'm done." - but you would have to interact with staff or those conducting assessment. What they are interested in is what happens when you try to engage with others or explanation as to why you simply can't. Your last sentence here sounds quite hmmm... how can I put this... surprising language.. I could be getting wrong end of stick (but so may an assessor or other decision maker if you use similar language or descriptions) but this doesn't come across as an authentic experience of OCD and if disability is described in this way as you try to detail the mechanism/events of what happens I imagine it'll raise some scepticism as to severity or seriousness. I would be expecting thoughts to be dominated by the anxiety of not being able to respond to a perceived wrong state... it isn't something you can just put off until it is convenient... circumstance may prevent you performing the rituals and that should escalate the anxiety... that in turn I would expect to start causing distress and other difficulties that one may have some ability to suppress or conceal through experience/coping strategies. When I faced a dripping tap at work.. not only did I think it was a deliberate act of targeting me by colleagues I was barely able to get away from the sink...in repetitive thoughts if not actual presence...  there was no... 'well at lunch break I'll sort it out'... it was preventing me doing work... I made every excuse I could to get to the damned tap to try to stop the dripping.

I think there's a lot to think about... but I can definitely get a good feel for why you've had the problems you've faced with assessments and decisions including tribunal. You've got to make a case for why descriptors apply... or determine there is no case. You need to be able to counter (not after the event but prior to event) the assumptions made given facts like that you drive if those assumptions are misleading or invalid... or accept the assumptions/extrapolations are valid.

sammyjammy

tifo said:

peteuk said:

When it comes to Activity 9 - the catch all is as follows

Where, as a result of past intervention, the claimant is now able to engage with other people satisfactorily and without further help, then the claimant does not need support for face to face engagement.

So if your husband takes you appointments - like I do with my wife, as support she doesnt need it, just a nicety- are you able to discuss things with the health care professional?  If you are then all other evidence is irrelevant.  It clearly states you dont need support.   THis is why you really need to read and understand the activities. 

I had a report sent back to me because the claimant spoke to the women at the check out in the suppermarket. They didnt like using self service counters. 

"So if your husband takes you appointments".

Wife. I'm male. But it's ok as you'd not know from the thread.

"I had a report sent back to me because the claimant spoke to the women at the check out in the suppermarket. They didnt like using self service counters".

I'm the same but it's because i don't want to touch the self serve terminal. I'd rather pay by card and put the shopping in the trolley (both of which i've already touched) rather than touch the self serve terminal or use cash which has been handled by many people.

"THis is why you really need to read and understand the activities".

I understand what you say, the only thing i didn't get was your comment about how having a driving license affects everything on PIP. Lots of people on PIP have a driving licence (and need it for their motability car) and some people have a driving license but never drive. I drive only when needed but not for pure leisure.

Yet you said in a previous post you do 100 miles average a week, thats alot more than i do!

chrisw

An interesting discussion! Couple of points - you can request a face-to-face assessment in your own home which avoids the need to go to an assessment centre if you would find the struggle too much.

And someone can get a Motability vehicle even if they don't drive, so their partner or carers can transport them.

Spoonie_Turtle

Muttleythefrog said:

tifo said:

HillStreetBlues said:

born_again said:

Something that just clicked on a previous post. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81312302/#Comment_81312302

When you got this assessment appointment. You said you wanted it to be a face to face rather than phone. Which I think can now be back in their offices, rather than at your home.
So given you are saying you can't mix with people & OCD added in at the last second, would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. (sorry to be so blunt)

Given a phone interview negates meeting other people & going to a area used by other people.

That would depend.
When I have an assessment I want it to be face to face, lot easier for me to have a call, but I want them to see how hard it is.

I was thinking the same. I thought I can get my points across better face to face than telephone.

"I see it the same as a GP or hospital appointment. I'm not 'mixing' with people because I don't have to interact with them. I'm just sitting there for an appointment. I can wash my hands and wipe down my clothes when I'm done." - […] Your last sentence here sounds quite hmmm... how can I put this... surprising language.. I could be getting wrong end of stick […] but this doesn't come across as an authentic experience of OCD […]

I do actually recognise that line of thinking as similar to one I've experienced myself when things were calming down and the OCD was no longer debilitating.  It didn't mean I didn't still struggle, but I was struggling less, and being able to cope like that meant I was able to function better.  I don't know if it's a healthy coping mechanism but it's a heck of a lot better than not being able to concentrate or think of anything other than how to Make The Situation Right immediately to stop the distress.

---


OP you keep coming back to the driving licence.  What you're not getting is that other people are claiming for different disabilities and have different experiences.  People claiming for debilitating visual problems generally aren't still able to drive.  Understandably the reasoning is, if you can see well enough to safely drive for the majority of the year, you can see well enough to do xyz.  
People claiming for joint problems may still drive if they have to but realistically it's likely they either cannot drive at all for more than half the time because it's too painful or they don't have the strength, or they have adaptations as mentioned above, or they do reluctantly drive when they have to but it's because they have no choice even though it is still very very painful.  There is a huge difference between being able to drive fine (even for 'only' X amount of the year), and being able to push through and drive when absolutely necessary but it having a big impact afterwards because of one's condition/s.

And of course there are many people with a physical disability meaning they need aids or help with activities of daily living but are just fine with necessary adaptations to the car to physically enable them to drive.  E.g. someone with certain types of cerebral palsy, someone without the use of their legs, someone with one or no arms, someone with quadriplegia, someone with dwarfism, etc. - they may be fully capable of driving with the right adaptations and still need enough help for daily life that they reach the PIP threshold.

tifo

peteuk said:

Driving/drivers licence was the biggest trap I spotted in PIP assessing.   It opens all sorts of discussions, parking (distance from car to door, ability to plan a route, grip, ability to learn unless theres been a significant injury which changes this etc etc) 

I'm finding out it is a trap, but i've still not worked out why those alleged 3.7 million or so on PIP are allowed to have a driving license and especially with a motability car. I know there will be evidence etc of their conditions other than being able to drive but i don't think all the 3.7 million will have.

I do get that others on here have explained the driving license issue but i find it hard getting my head around why, for me, it's used in almost every descriptor.

tifo

On here https://www.mentalhealthandmoneyadvice.org/en/welfare-benefits/pip-mental-health-guide/challenging-a-pip-decision/mandatory-reconsideration-for-pip/ it says "When you receive your PIP decision letter, you can ask the DWP for written reasons as to why they made their decision. Asking for their reasons may help put forward your argument for a mandatory consideration as you could be able to challenge the reasoning. You should ask as soon as possible, as the process can take up to 14 days".

I didn't know i could ask for a statement of reasons like for a tribunal decision. Should i ask for this? The DM has simply copied and pasted from the assessment report, some word for word. I don't think there was any looking at the claim and making their own mind up.

tifo

Spoonie_Turtle said:

You also need to know that the threshold for scoring on the 'mixing with people' activity is particularly high.  You might find reading case law useful to calibrate your expectations: https://pipinfo.net/activities/engaging-with-other-people-face-to-face

There's some good case info here, some of which helps me. I'll need to understand the cases.

For example "Ability to establish a relationship when engaging with others requires evidence of more than mere reciprocation of exchanges" or "Engaging socially involves more than to be able to communicate; the interaction must be contextually and socially appropriate" or "Ability to establish a relationship when assessing ‘engaging with others’ PIP activity requires evidence of more than mere visits to shopping centres".

But ..... do i really need to bombard the DWP with case law for a MR?