PIP Urgent Help

atlantis187

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Are you able to e-mail the CAB?  At least that way it should get eyes on your situation even though you haven't yet been able to get through on the phone.

do u happen to have an email for them please?
google just shows the phone number
thanks

Spoonie_Turtle

Ah.  I put my postcode in on this page and it turns out only some of them can be e-mailed https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/contact-us/

However the ones local to me that don't say e-mail, they do have a web link (when clicking on the listing for them) which in turn has an online contact form.  So definitely click through to investigate.

HillStreetBlues

Without taking your thread OT too much I just want to say I find going back 7 years and rewriting history outrageous, how one person/team  basically  usurping multiple DMs beggars belief.  

Muttleythefrog

Just quick question for the thread.. already asked but.. have they explained the zero points descriptors in the decision...off top of head 'you claimed you had difficulty reading but there is no evidence to support a restriction with this activity' type stuff? Or have they literally just given no justification for that choice of descriptor across all 12 activities?

atlantis187

They have given no justification for any of the descriptors just scored zero for everything,
I'll see if I can upload a pic of this but MSE has been playing up for me.

atlantis187

This is what it says on the letter:

peteuk

I think you need to look at the conditions claimed for and if they fit into the 3/9 months and if there was enough supporting evidence to justify the level of support.  If these are likely to get better with treatment etc etc. 

However what confusses me is the fact that the recent review increased the PIP claim....

HillStreetBlues

atlantis187 said:

This is what it says on the letter:

It's totally contradictory.
It states previous decisions were based on incomplete information then lists all the information used in new decision which will be the same "incomplete information"

itsthelittlethings

What information did you provide for her PIP claim?

Muttleythefrog

peteuk said:

I think you need to look at the conditions claimed for and if they fit into the 3/9 months and if there was enough supporting evidence to justify the level of support.  If these are likely to get better with treatment etc etc. 

However what confusses me is the fact that the recent review increased the PIP claim....

And it is this assessment report that I suspect has triggered either AI or human suspicion and caused referral the the enhanced review team which we know has taken around half a year to take a decision. Without wanting to breach confidentiality I'll try to navigate my best here but this is my best guess at events. This has then resulted in some fact finding efforts by that team which has not acquired the information (or all of) that they sought. So they've used UC to do an enhanced review as described in another of the Op's threads where both the claimant of PIP subject of the thread and the Op were queried about their health conditions etc and required to provide evidence which they did (not of bank statements and ID as per a standard review). This information has been collated and a DM at PIP has used what they consider reliable evidence or facts to then look at the fundamental basis of the claim from start to look for inconsistency (which could arise in other claims over the years which have been various across the parties) or lacking evidence to reach a sweeping conclusion and decision.

What we know (at least from my memory of reading backstories - please correct if wrong) is the original assessment back in around 2018 resulted in zero points. This was MR challenged without success but then facing appeal the DWP made an offer of points leading to no award which obviously was rejected so they came back with another offer which inferred a standard award for both elements and this was accepted. Covid intervened and I'm not sure there has been any other assessment... if there has been the decision has been unchanged or similar. Then you've got this lengthy recent telephone assessment at the back end of last year for a new review.. which results in a significantly increased level of disability identified and indeed would infer an award of enhanced for both elements... and notably for not long a period. 

For me the difficulty is the Op thinks standard rates for both elements is right... so I'm confused as to what happened at this review... it's probably not common for claimants to have a stable claim over years they think is accurately awarded and then suddenly find an HCP who thinks they're much more disabled than has been previously accepted by both DWP and claimant... so was the HCP having a generous day or was there shifting evidence. Whatever the DWP seems to have faced an issue where a person's disablements have not changed (the OP insists claims have been consistent including with the same evidence supplied) and yet from their own evaluations there's been a notable rise in disablement since first assessed. So my question is are the DWP looking for evidence they think tries to explain their own inconsistencies with the history of this claim or do they lay blame with the claimant. Only the evidence itself can answer the question... and the question regarding that is when are they going to specify it.. surely they have the sense to at least make a case to a tribunal should it get that far.

That's my thinking. What does worry me... is if you take information about a couple in various contexts (benefit related) over a lengthy period of time I think finding anomalies or inconsistencies would be quite normal and easy even where there has been genuine claims... if you add in 3rd party evidence the risks increase dramatically... because as we know for example medical professionals are not always great at recording facts... (I'm 20 pages into a complaint against my GP who didn't even record I was passing blood.. one of the key signs of rectal cancer which he failed to either detect or refer me on to rule out.) 

So as I see it it may follow a line for the Op and his wife here of demonstrating that since the day dot back in 2018 every PIP submission was consistent... their evidence was consistent... and that she still should be entitled to standard rate mobility and DL and the recent assessment was not accurate just like the first which wildly contradicts it. i.e. It is the DWP and their contracted assessors who are at failure here in inconsistency not the claimant. However of course I can't see the evidence... and they may have some compelling case of deception... could be anything.. could be as Pete suggests condition related that can't be shown to exist at some point or that should be resolved with treatment.