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

Muttleythefrog

tifo said:

@Muttleythefrog "I think the driving licence issue (and now blue badge) is possibly hijacking your anxieties and assessments".

The driving license I understand they use for nearly everyone but not having a blue badge means i'm ok is one i've not heard before and it shows, to me, they're just making things up.

Without PIP it's very hard getting a blue badge.

"I don't know how to explain it but it's 'my' time when i'm away from everyone else (people) and have my own space" - this sounds like preference not disablement. It may also sound so when you describe inability to use public transport".

No, it's my OCD which stops me using public transport, or sitting on public benches, for example in town or a park, or sitting on the grass at a picnic (which i don't go to anyway for people reasons and because i'm just going to stand around). If i didn't use my car i'd be restricted in where i can go on my own as i can't be with people.

They're trying to establish circumstances... facts.. to assist them in trying to measure disablement. They're trying to get at your truth. They're looking for 3rd party evidence such as from specialists or other agencies assessing your illnesses and disablements. In terms of OCD my view is this requires careful explanation to assessors and anyone frankly... because OCD plays out very personally and not typically as per the clichéd street use of the term... it's an anxiety disorder with ritualistic behaviours... and you have to take people through exactly how it affects you. If you don't it may not sound authentic...and a person with severe OCD (of the sort you'd expect to start triggering scoring for PIP activities) is liable to have a life daily and persistently infiltrated with ritualistic behaviours. Assessors should be looking for consistency too... while things like mental illness play out often irrationally there should be some coherence in problems and experiences...I do wonder if they're finding inconsistency across activities.

Would someone with a severe anxiety disorder relating to public related dirt state objects or fear of such 'just stand around' avoiding talking to people... is that really their experience... why does the anxiety not cause them to flee or abandon a situation which is clearly going to present hostility of other human actors or their contamination... or is the anxiety disorder mild... are their social fears of failed interaction also mild... are rituals involved at all in trying to address anxiety trigger or can they resist them (perhaps because of treatment/coping strategies learned). I wonder how you're explaining the impact of OCD in daily living activities... assuming you think there is impact relevant. If I were the assessor I'd be asking about your trips out in detail when you use your car... what do you do... where do you go... try to get an understanding of whether disablement or preferences are playing out... you say you can't be with people so how does that work when you do go out I would be wondering... are you going to isolated places or shopping... how do you get your shopping... and so on. In my mind you seem to indicate your OCD related anxieties are with contamination or dirt (and you specifically here relay that to outside environments only.. that you do not of course control)... so is this playing out at home at all... if not then how are you going to score daily living points of note I'm not sure... you detail 8 you should get but I also note you do same for mobility... OCD for daily living seems irrelevant... it seems to also minimally impact Mobility 1...I'm therefore confused as to why you think it will transform your claim and especially without solid evidence or enduring documented problems... so you really are scrambling for points to qualify as I see it... and indeed as you describe. I think this has been at the heart of your PIP campaign over years... you're trying to find some way to get that award... it has become the end goal in itself and I worry to detriment of health.

I've never had a driving licence... well.. except an unused provisional... so they've never used it in my case as a fact... but as detailed they can use ability to drive to start establishing some facts about other abilities. This is what they do. Eventually one may have to conclude repeatedly similar professional opinion has some basis or merit.

born_again

tifo said:

born_again said:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81599025/#Comment_81599025

The eye conditions in the other eye are present 100% of the time. And they give problems the majority of the time. I've always said that, and so does the hospital, but the assessors don't believe us.

Which read's as you are putting this down as a reason in the daily living descriptors.

Yes, they are present all the time, that doesn't mean i can't see, the problems are in my blind eye. Those problems affect my daily living which is why they're in my claim.

I don't understand what you're saying?

So how do you word the daily living descriptors about the effect your eye site has?

tifo

Thisisthelife said:

so going forward op what do you intend to do?

I've got an appointment with a Shelter adviser in mid September. Last time they advised not to appeal with a MR as mental health wasn't included in the form and that I should reapply and include this. There was some advice on here about that too. So that is what I did.

I'll go with what the Shelter adviser says. From what i can see and they said last time, i think it will be a MR.

Lots of people on here say i'm obsessed with a PIP award, but I don't think I am. This is really a second claim in 4 years (discounting the one in January as, had i included mental health issues in that i wouldn't have made this claim) and i only made it because of new conditions affecting me daily. Had i not had those new conditions i wouldn't have made a PIP claim and it would have stayed at 1 claim in 2021. That's not being obsessed with PIP.

For the PIP claim in 2021 i was unlucky. Despite what people say, i didn't get a fair assessment or tribunal hearing. The assessor blatantly lied about many things. I'm ethnic minority and she made several untrue statements which are relevant to our community only (she was the same ethnicity as me) and which i easily disproved. She also made assumptions about things in our community and hadn't asked me the relevant questions for those. In any case they didn't apply in my case. The tribunal then said they didn't believe me and believed the assessor so i didn't have the opportunity to move forward from the blatant lies she'd written. There wasn't any driving license issue as she only said I drive a manual car (which was wrong, i had an automatic MB) in one statement.

In the second PIP claim this January the assessor used the driving license reason across every descriptor and in this current claim the assessor has used driving license and/or blue badge across all descriptors. But the statements given in the reasons for choosing the relevant points (or lack of) are very different in all 3 PIP reports.

So, this shows that assessors are not impartial and bring their own opinions and prejudices into PIP claims. The DMs at DWP are meant to be impartial etc but again they'll bring their own viewpoints in. The same with the tribunal. No one is really 100% impartial.

Even the Shelter advisers don't always help and to them it's just a job. They don't really care about me. I've had this from Shelter several times in the past. Even with this appointment in mid September I said it'll be after the 30 days and rather than tell me that i have up to 13 months to appeal, she said "you can always do it yourself". Which is different to the previous adviser in March who said "don't worry you have 13 months to appeal". Different person with different words and words make a difference to people's opinions.

Both my tribunals at for the WCA and PIP were a week or so apart and both used the same WCA and PIP reports (DWP brought in both reports) yet I had different outcomes. The Dr at the WCA tribunal was very helpful and the Dr at the PIP tribunal wasn't. The judge in one didn't say they didn't believe me and awarded LCW but the judge in the other did, yet both had almost exactly the same information in front of them.

tifo

Cressida100 said:

You have had the BEST advice from so many knowledgeable people. They have loads of experience in this field. Why do you think they are ALL wrong and you are correct? 

I don't think they are all wrong. I take all info on board.

teaselMay

It'd be much better for you to forget about PIP and get on with enjoying your life. Believe me those of us with sufficiently severe impairments to qualify for PIP would much rather be less disabled than qualify.

tifo

In a previous post I said "The assessor stated that my wife helping me doesn't constitute social support but in the case of MMcK v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2016) the court looked at the meaning of 'prompting' and 'social support' and both them and the DWP agree that social support can be from friends and family who, because they know the person, can be seen as 'experienced' under the activity. The DWP say that once the help is more than 'prompting' it can be seen as 'social support'. So in that context I receive social support from my wife and my friends which meets the activity requirement".

A further case i've come across from pipinfo is SL v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) [2016] which helps me. The judge ruled on the meaning of 'social support' from friends and family and concluded this can be accepted for the 'experienced' definition in the legislation ("I am satisfied that on appropriate findings a friend, a family member or some other type of lay person can provide the requisite “social support” thus, enabling a claimant, on the right facts, to satisfy descriptor 9(c) without any form of professional or specialist input").

From the case quotes it's also the governments view ("Some respondents were concerned that our definition of social support excludes friends and family. This is not the case, we recognise the importance of friends and family and that is why our definition of social support is: ‘support from persons trained or experienced in assisting people to engage in social situations’. By referring to ‘experienced’ we mean both people such as friends and family who know the individual well and can offer support, or those who do not know them but are more generally used to providing social support for individuals with health conditions or impairments").

Muttleythefrog

At the end of the day it's your life... your claims. But it does look like obsession... and selective hearing of advice even sometimes turning it on its head to be what you want it to be. I hope Shelter can assist here... somehow.

"In the second PIP claim this January the assessor used the driving license reason across every descriptor and in this current claim the assessor has used driving license and/or blue badge across all descriptors. But the statements given in the reasons for choosing the relevant points (or lack of) are very different in all 3 PIP reports.

So, this shows that assessors are not impartial and bring their own opinions and prejudices into PIP claims. The DMs at DWP are meant to be impartial etc but again they'll bring their own viewpoints in. The same with the tribunal. No one is really 100% impartial."

While assessors will always have their own thoughts I see no issue here.. all this shows is assessors using their own brain... to gather evidence in order to reach their OWN conclusions on disablement you suffer. . Assessors have benefit of previous same if they exist. No two assessments will be the same....not even for the same person... not even if they were done on the same day... questions will vary... you're not being assessed by a computer algorithm. The fact they are assessing the same claimant and you think all behaving differently yet come to essentially the same conclusions should perhaps be telling you something. Nothing you have reported about the assessments (other than the ethnic matter I'll come to) sound irregular and indeed there's good evidence from you that recent assessments involved very good exploration of precisely the problems you report and the taking of them very seriously. You may not agree... but that's what I see you reporting of what happened and what is outcome.

Regarding the ethnic issue and assessment of past.... hmm... obviously we don't know details but there can be problems of stereotyping communities... I would have hoped not entering these assessments but I can only accept what you report and that certainly would be unacceptable.  

Regarding Shelter... they'll probably have big caseloads... and yes each case worker or employee may phrase or do things differently. It's your choice to engage with them and from memory last time they seemed to give good thoughtful advice in suggesting not pursuing an MR.

Regarding different outcomes at tribunals...PIP and WCA are different... so they cannot have same outcome.. but both tribunals did not likely see exactly the same evidence even if every document was identical unless you didn't attend. You yourself present significant evidence if attending. Ultimately yes... just like a criminal trial... you can get different outcomes for the same case. One hopes with PIP and WCA you get reasonably accurate assessments and/or decisions such that suitable awards are made to claimants who are entitled to them. 

My fear is this for you has become just an endless complaint of the failure of others.... they've all let you down.... but are you letting yourself down... with poor claims.. ignorance of advice.. and ultimately distraction from what you really need which is help with your health problems. It feels like a never-ending saga... and as others have pointed to... even if successful in claim at some point there is grave fear it'll be short lived due to the timing of claim. You've now had feedback essentially telling you it was too soon to claim from the person who then went on to assess you..."She's also used lack of any help for my OCD as a reason even though I made it clear that the therapy for that will start after the therapy for social anxiety and depression"... you were warned here this could happen.. it was spelled out very clearly multiple times... so I hope you were not surprised... you were also warned that if claim successful the fact you're starting treatment and have no outcomes of such or psychiatric referrals on would mean they may make very limited length awards so that you can be reassessed to see impact. You could be in the bizarre situation of pursuing an MR and then appeal right through treatment and referral processes that you'd have loved to include in the evidence of a claim.

Good luck!

tifo

Where I said "The assessor stated that my wife helping me doesn't constitute social support", the assessor's words are "FH showing difficulties when engaging with others ... without prompting" but then she says "he reports needing social support ... this is inconsistent with the FH showing his wife does not appear to be providing any specific support, his children can help him too". But in the FH info she says "his wife will prompt him and his children will help sometimes ... he takes his wife to appointments ... even to the GP ... he said it is the moral and social support ... he doesn't think she knows what to do".

Can someone interpret the above? And what does "he doesn't think she knows what to do" mean? Is she saying my wife doesn't know what to do? But being there and supportive is all she needs to do.

I got 2 points with the above but i say it should be 4 with the 'social support' rather than 'prompting' as per descriptor and UT cases.

The social support is sometimes from a friend or friends and this is accepted in the cases and govt guidelines.

For planning and following journeys there is also some social support aspect.

Muttleythefrog

tifo said:

Where I said "The assessor stated that my wife helping me doesn't constitute social support", the assessor's words are "FH showing difficulties when engaging with others ... without prompting" but then she says "he reports needing social support ... this is inconsistent with the FH showing his wife does not appear to be providing any specific support, his children can help him too". But in the FH info she says "his wife will prompt him and his children will help sometimes ... he takes his wife to appointments ... even to the GP ... he said it is the moral and social support ... he doesn't think she knows what to do".

Can someone interpret the above? And what does "he doesn't think she knows what to do" mean? Is she saying my wife doesn't know what to do? But being there and supportive is all she needs to do.

I got 2 points with the above but i say it should be 4 with the 'social support' rather than 'prompting' as per descriptor and UT cases.

For planning and following journeys there is also some social support aspect.

I can interpret the above... I may be wrong but I assume FH means family history... 

They don't think your wife does anything specific to support you (other than prompting which they score you for)... they do not think you have the level of disablement for the social support descriptor. The assessor seems to think that the wife's support is as you described it to her. If she was providing specific support you would be able to detail it clearly as it is something you repeatedly experience... it looks like you failed to do that and instead indicated your wife doesn't provide such. I don't know how they could possibly conclude you need social support when you yourself struggle to specify what that means and admit your wife doesn't either. I mean if I tell you I need someone to help me take my medication but the person who helps me doesn't even know what medication I take and doesn't know how I'm supposed to take it... one might conclude they're not helping me take my medication.. right? If this is how your assessments play out then I'm not surprised they're zero scoring you... you should be able to detail very clearly help you get and problems you suffer..and the problems you suffer when you don't get that support you need.... after all.. it is meant to be your daily reality... your lived experience. 'Just being there' is entirely unconvincing....and indicates any requirement of their support seems minimal to overcome minor problems. She doesn't seem to provide any active support. There's also indication you may imply or tell assessors you prefer your own space and company if out... is she help or hindrance they may wonder.

In your other post regarding case law you conclude:
"So in that context I receive social support from my wife and my friends which meets the activity requirement" - I see no evidence from you this is true and clearly nor did the assessor... it's not what you're describing at all. It seems more you are hoping others think that's what is happening... unless you are failing to actually detail support you get. 

Cressida100

tifo said:

Cressida100 said:

You have had the BEST advice from so many knowledgeable people. They have loads of experience in this field. Why do you think they are ALL wrong and you are correct? 

I don't think they are all wrong. I take all info on board.

YOU IGNORE ALL THE ADVICE!!!

You read the advice and then you parrot the same old. Assessor lied, they used your ethnicity against you, didn't like the fact you could drive and so on ........... Might it just be that you do not qualify for PIP?

NB. You should change the title of the thread as nobody advised you to claim again so quickly. It's very misleading. You were advised to wait.