PIP Urgent Help

atlantis187

... and they may have some compelling case of deception...   Muttleythefrog
I hope that is not the case. lol

Her disabilities are all genuine life long conditions and well documented in her medical records which they are fully aware of.

Muttleythefrog

HillStreetBlues said:

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"

They've acquired more information.... including at least directly from interview and medical records submission from UC enhanced review which focussed on the joint claimants' medical circumstances and evidence even though neither is claiming the health element. This I am convinced was directed by PIP Enhanced review team due to timing and requested info that isn't relevant to the UC claim. There has been a wealth of confusion for the Op and for posters on MSE because of the unusual background here... the UC review was not standard and even seemed non standard for the enhanced one that it was... the Op seems to have had confusion over who they were actually dealing with and probably because two enhanced review teams were dealing with them at the same time in collaboration. 

What troubles me... is the cases I've seen of awards being completely lost (although not all historical ones to boot) even where there is clear entitlement (I assume the subject here is entitled to some level of PIP) came down to exactly the same thing ultimately... and I am thinking it likely applies in this case.

Muttleythefrog

atlantis187 said:

... and they may have some compelling case of deception...   Muttleythefrog
I hope that is not the case. lol

Her disabilities are all genuine life long conditions and well documented in her medical records which they are fully aware of.

Are the mental health problems life long conditions (Personality disorders are generally considered to be... but not some of the more prevalent conditions)... what evidence do you have for that or what makes you think that? (This may the sort of response you'd get if such a thing was said at say a tribunal so be careful not to claim things that are hard to evidence or reason.. credibility is important). Ulcerative Colitis is likely for life and indeed the conditions it then causes for her. 

What we do know is historically you/her have indicated which descriptors apply to her... at very least when following advice given on MSE by reliable posters on how to present an MR back in 2020 when you confirmed this is what you did. And judging from what you said at the time in the events that followed you considered standard awards of both elements to be correct.... it's what ultimately the DWP offered facing the threat of a tribunal. You are now in a position where a recent assessment report suggests she is much more disabled (relevant to PIP) than all parties considered her in or around 2020 (initial claim started 2018 I think). This I think is a big problem unless the assessor was having a troubled day - I can only repeat I do not think it common for assessors to find claimants much more disabled than they think they are and have been considered to be... usually the problem is the opposite (as was found in the original assessment when they concluded she wasn't disabled enough to score in any activity.. something very common for genuinely disabled people first applying).

That assessor's poor performance could have caused the suspicion that triggered the enhanced review... alternatively the assessment (and possibly other evidence supplied by claimant) was conducted with deception. These are the only two options on the table as I see it... the assessor failed to accurately assess the disabilities (overestimating many) or the claimant (possibly along with partner) were deceptive (exaggerating many)...there seems no alternative explanation to me and I think this is why the investigation was conducted including for further fact finding. It's imperative regardless... that the claimant is absolutely consistent on their disabilities and has a clear presentation of their disablements for each activity... and sticks with it unless and until their disabilities relevantly change... true in form filling, true in assessment, true in appeals... and consistent with other claims they may have. If you have a truth to defend it's the DWP that will appear at odds with itself and the failings will lie with it in inconsistency. There could be a trap here that you walk right into... refuse it... the DWP have already given you strategic advantage in not taking a decision reliant on the recent assessment report.

Spoonie_Turtle

There is one thing that's been nagging in my mind - is there any chance someone else's evidence has been misfiled, the review team haven't noticed it's not for the right person, and come to the wrong conclusion?  I don't mean it in a conspiracy theory 'this is always happening' way, but a genuine, 'is it beyond the realms of possibility'?  Since evidence is scanned in by humans, as far as I understand.  Of course there are no doubt safeguards against that but, nothing is completely foolproof.

kkkklinky

This is the letter my sister received when her claim was ended due to fraud(her claim was indeed fraudulent). I have also seen a similar letter in another fraud case. I think the DWP sees this as a fraudulent claim and either has evidence or believes they have evidence confirming that, they will not fully disclose information due to potential legal proceedings.

Hope for OPs sake it is a mistake or misunderstanding.

marcia_

 This has just happened to a family member. Was waiting a long time for the decision as per usual then a letter came through a few weeks ago denying him pip from July 2024 also saying 0 points and debt due to be repaid.

 I am doing him a mandatory reconsideration because they state they made their decision partially from medical reports that he did not send this time. He sent them for his initial claim which granted him high rate mobility no care due to epilepsy. 

 I believe with fresh medical evidence we can get this over turned. 

Rubyroobs

marcia_ said:

 This has just happened to a family member. Was waiting a long time for the decision as per usual then a letter came through a few weeks ago denying him pip from July 2024 also saying 0 points and debt due to be repaid.

 I am doing him a mandatory reconsideration because they state they made their decision partially from medical reports that he did not send this time. He sent them for his initial claim which granted him high rate mobility no care due to epilepsy. 

 I believe with fresh medical evidence we can get this over turned. 

Can they seriously demand repayment if people lose their award and it is because renewals are so far behind that it hasn't been picked up earlier? I have a client who was awarded enhanced rates on a paper based assessment and was very ill at the time but has now significantly improved. I encouraged her to report a change of circumstances which she says she did and they said to wait for normal renewal forms as they would be due within the next six months. It is highly likely she will not now qualify for enhanced rates. if it takes another year for her renewal to be assessed could she face having to repay as I'm sure her award is going to reduce if not cease altogether. 

sheramber

Rubyroobs said:

marcia_ said:

 This has just happened to a family member. Was waiting a long time for the decision as per usual then a letter came through a few weeks ago denying him pip from July 2024 also saying 0 points and debt due to be repaid.

 I am doing him a mandatory reconsideration because they state they made their decision partially from medical reports that he did not send this time. He sent them for his initial claim which granted him high rate mobility no care due to epilepsy. 

 I believe with fresh medical evidence we can get this over turned. 

Can they seriously demand repayment if people lose their award and it is because renewals are so far behind that it hasn't been picked up earlier? I have a client who was awarded enhanced rates on a paper based assessment and was very ill at the time but has now significantly improved. I encouraged her to report a change of circumstances which she says she did and they said to wait for normal renewal forms as they would be due within the next six months. It is highly likely she will not now qualify for enhanced rates. if it takes another year for her renewal to be assessed could she face having to repay as I'm sure her award is going to reduce if not cease altogether. 

In that case would it not be prudent to put the money into a separate bank account until the result is known.
that was she will have the money to repay, if necessary.

HillStreetBlues

Rubyroobs said:

marcia_ said:

 This has just happened to a family member. Was waiting a long time for the decision as per usual then a letter came through a few weeks ago denying him pip from July 2024 also saying 0 points and debt due to be repaid.

 I am doing him a mandatory reconsideration because they state they made their decision partially from medical reports that he did not send this time. He sent them for his initial claim which granted him high rate mobility no care due to epilepsy. 

 I believe with fresh medical evidence we can get this over turned. 

Can they seriously demand repayment if people lose their award and it is because renewals are so far behind that it hasn't been picked up earlier? I have a client who was awarded enhanced rates on a paper based assessment and was very ill at the time but has now significantly improved. I encouraged her to report a change of circumstances which she says she did and they said to wait for normal renewal forms as they would be due within the next six months. It is highly likely she will not now qualify for enhanced rates. if it takes another year for her renewal to be assessed could she face having to repay as I'm sure her award is going to reduce if not cease altogether. 

Make sure they keep a record of date & time and what was actually said. Might need that as to show the change was reported.

Cressida100

After reading the OPs previous threads this begins to make more sense.