PIP Urgent Help

atlantis187

Muttleythefrog said:

bazdvd said:

OPs wife scored 20 for daily living and 22 for mobility. With that level of points you would expect some difficulty  using public transport for the duration of a holiday.

Just to say.. the Op rejects the level of disability assessed in the report... so  if I'm understanding correctly both the DWP and claimant have or will consider the report trash. My advice would go further and say the claimant has to reject that report (ignoring it is fine since it was effectively not used for a decision) to retain any credibility over the history of the claim... as I said to the Op... there is a trap... do not walk into it... get greedy get skint.

Sorry I'm a little confused mate are u saying we should ask for another assessment for her as we don't fully agree with the last one?

Muttleythefrog

atlantis187 said:

Muttleythefrog said:

bazdvd said:

OPs wife scored 20 for daily living and 22 for mobility. With that level of points you would expect some difficulty  using public transport for the duration of a holiday.

Just to say.. the Op rejects the level of disability assessed in the report... so  if I'm understanding correctly both the DWP and claimant have or will consider the report trash. My advice would go further and say the claimant has to reject that report (ignoring it is fine since it was effectively not used for a decision) to retain any credibility over the history of the claim... as I said to the Op... there is a trap... do not walk into it... get greedy get skint.

Sorry I'm a little confused mate are u saying we should ask for another assessment for her as we don't fully agree with the last one?

No... I'm saying.... that you are saying the claim and claimed problems of your wife have been consistent since 2018 when she first claimed... this is great especially if her difficulties and conditions have not really changed to affect the PIP claim. What has happened through this claim is the DWP have been inconsistent and so have their commissioned assessors. People who tell the truth tend to tell it reliably over time... you tend not to get convenient shifts in those claimed truths - if for example someone said for 10 years they never stole the communal  housekeeping money off the mantel piece... then in year 11 said they only did it because a bill needed paying then all credibility of what was claimed for 10 years to be true is gone... so why believe what they say now either. The DWP here are all over the place initially concluding no relevant PIP disablements after an assessor's report and now having to reject an assessors report that sounds like it concludes your wife is much more disabled than makes sense. In the interim they've probably failed to do much assessing of the claim due to Covid and backlogs etc (you will have fuller details but this is what I detect from what is variously said).

They've then, probably triggered (possibly electronically by AI which may consider higher risks - hence history of other claims may play a role.. and people here have read some of that leading to a view) by that surprising report, decided to use tools available to them (including to the surprise probably of me and many here UC enhanced review team using their powers to support their own in evidence collection - they asked for details seemingly irrelevant to your UC joint claim and quickly concluded after supply of information likely passed to PIP's team the review was done and dusted no change) to look at the truths of the claim and possibly from the very first form filled because the people they rely on to determine accurately the disablements are concluding wildly different things which can't all be accurate or true in the face of a claim that has been essentially (according to you) static in claimed difficulties. So either they are screwing up and now trying to blame you somehow by fact finding looking for inconsistencies or falsity and believing they have found sufficient to take their wide-ranging decision... or there has not been consistency/truths in the claim as you propose.

Now regardless of which of those two things is true... and people may have their guess... you have one job really... and that's to remain true to what you claim is true. If you do not you fall into the trap laid out which encourages you to make the mistake of changing the details to fit with any other narrative (like a nice juicy assessors report that would lead to a maximum monetary award)... and if that happens you lose credibility in a 3rd party's eyes regardless of the truths. (We have seen this several times before... advice ignored... credibility fundamentally undermined, claim completely lost even when there was clearly going to be some legitimate entitlement to PIP.. one of the relatives of one is on this thread!). And it is quite possible a 3rd party is who will determine the entirety of decision on all this PIP claim. Understand the claim.. understand the important audience... understand credibility may be absolutely central to how this plays out. So be thinking about a tribunal panel as well as obviously the second decision maker for the reconsideration request as you again can show consistency and save some effort of repetition for an appeal if such is needed/desired.

Of course it is possible I have this completely wrong... there may just be some simple fact they think they've found which is easily disputed... like in medical records she is recovered from some condition when that's just not true and a specialist will confirm the condition. We're sort of blind... information is power... why are they not disclosing their information... is there even some sensitivity regarding it... who knows. Like others I have a horrible feeling I know what paths have been trodden on here (because they've been well trodden before)... and if so then credibility is key and consistency is absolutely impossible to avoid unless you elect to walk a hard road of defeat.

On the issue of another assessment I'm not sure you have the power to request such unless indirectly by making new claim or reporting changes. Ultimately it may have no value anyway because they appear to have information they think overrides the information HCPs have had available to them - they use the phrase incomplete information and they point to key medical details as being where they acquired the missing information... this seems crucial. What is in those records that they could think undermines, challenges or refutes what is being said by your wife/you in forms and assessments. Whatever it is presumably would not be supplied for a future assessment as either you consider it's not true so you wouldn't or is irrelevant or misleading or the like.

atlantis187

They promise us a phone call back since Tuesday to give us an explanation. Still not heard anything
How much more longer should we give them before chasing this?

Muttleythefrog

atlantis187 said:

They promise us a phone call back since Tuesday to give us an explanation. Still not heard anything
How much more longer should we give them before chasing this?

I'd call them again Monday and say your MP may have to become involved if the DWP won't tell you what information they believe they have which was missing that now means she is not entitled to any PIP and has not been entitled to it since 2018. I might be tempted to say you are being prevented from seeking natural justice as evidence is being withheld. You have to watch the timeline for the MR... and I wouldn't waste time putting the skeleton of that together... most will not require the information you seek. They expect MR within a month... up to 13 months is possible but you'd need to justify that. If running out of time for the month you can put the MR request in by phone potentially and indicate written details are to follow and a DM should await that. Ideally you want to avoid another layer of difficulty... literally in the last couple of minutes my 1 year deadline to submit a very serious GP complaint passed... I submitted it yesterday losing a night's sleep before chemotherapy... but it will save me trying to justify not submitting it within a year. Some battles can be avoided including ones you expect to win... not all battles won bring rewards and some bring scars. If they don't give details or you can't figure them out which to me is perhaps moderately surprising given you know probably where to look  (key medical factors they describe in decision - you know what you supplied to them in claims (including possibly HCP conducted assessments too) and in the UC enhanced review so check) then I would assume they'd surely have to for an appeal tribunal... at least point them to what medical details they're talking about... a tribunal isn't likely going to go on a treasure hunt for the DWPs pertinent evidence they won't state explicitly like 'medical records show in 2019 Mrs X had treatment for Y and since has not had the condition yet she claims in her PIP assessments that it prevents her doing a,b,c.

If they do not give details of the information that they now have they felt had been missing since 2018 or thereabouts... and you create the MR document/form and have to submit it then I would state at some point that you cannot explain, refute or challenge allegedly missing evidence unless  the Decision Maker or their associates tell you what they think it is and you have requested this on dates x,y,z by telephone call and still not received any details (including in promised callback). 

A part of me might be inclined to indeed copy the MR to your MP (giving in the email with MR document attachment your reasons for including them - DWP sweeping decision based on information they won't tell you creating a situation where you feel it near impossible to challenge a decision you cannot understand) and indicate in the MR this is being done. It may sharpen focus of the DM.

peteuk

Mobility activities and descriptors

Activity 1 - Planning and following journeys 

e. Cannot undertake any journey because it would make them feel so anxious or distressed that they cannot function. - Score 10

f. Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog, or an orientation aid. - Score 12

Activity 2 - Moving around without severe discomfort

e. Can walk more than 1 metre but no more than 20 metres, either aided or unaided. - Score 12

f. Cannot, either aided or unaided, (i) stand; or (ii) move more than 1 metre. - Score 12

To score 22 in mobilty the OP would need to have either E,F or F,E for the two mobility activities.  Activiey 1 would need massive evidence to say the claimant can not lesve the house with or without assistance.   If the UC review has noted that there is no evidence therefore has a work commitment, then for once HMRC,UC,PIP are working together. 

I know the OP has said they dont agree with second assessment, but I get the review throwing up issues.  But what I dont get is the original PIP when to tribuneral.  Or did it during Covid was it just stamped and awarded. 

 Either way PIP is somewhat different from UC/TC etc that notes you should know when an overpayment is made. But with PIP you complete a questionaire, go through an assessment and the only thing that comes back is the assessors report, so unless your disagree an award or no award is accepted.  Once the DM makes a decision then this is based on facts.  Sure there is scope to lie about the issues you have eg Ive such a bad backthat I cant walk 20 meters but then your caught running a little seaside cafe where you park your car and walk 200 meters from the car to the cafe.   Equally there are degrees of conditions and the effect they have on life, which is where the evidence comes into it. 

I would be very isterested in the outcome and explination from the OP 

Muttleythefrog

peteuk said:

I know the OP has said they dont agree with second assessment, but I get the review throwing up issues.  But what I dont get is the original PIP when to tribuneral.  Or did it during Covid was it just stamped and awarded. 

I would be very isterested in the outcome and explination from the OP 

On your last point me too... very. I'm particular focussing on what the heck happened at the HCP assessment leading to surprisingly high scoring across both elements (when we know underscoring is a much more widely claimed problem and likely actually a more more widely experienced reality).... as well as obviously what the DWP PIP DM thinks is the missing information they now have relating to medical conditions their treatment etc as they state in the decision letter.

On the first... and the Op will correct me if wrong I hope. She, his wife, scored no points in HCP assessment for initial PIP claim made circa 2018 and DM rubber stamped it... MR was requested and decision was unchanged. Appeal made, the DWP come back offering some points in Mob and DL but neither sufficient for award so rejected. DWP come back with new offer which implies a standard Mob and DL award which was enthusiastically accepted and considered accurate. Appeal did not proceed. I think that was the remaining position of claim heading into 2024 started review. (So the DWP have history on this claim of running away from their commissioned HCP assessment report - they did it twice ultimately with initial claim and they've comprehensively done it here in this review)

born_again

Does OP's wife get lcwra or lcw via UC?

Thought being if they do not or have been declined, could that trigger the issue they are now facing. Mismatch of reports?

Muttleythefrog

born_again said:

Does OP's wife get lcwra or lcw via UC?

Thought being if they do not or have been declined, could that trigger the issue they are now facing. Mismatch of reports?

Carer element re children I believe.. neither get the health element.. but I may be right in saying there has been historical ESA. (Trying to go on memory after I read back lots while on heavy anti cancer drugs). What I would say... is if they have trawled historical claims with health related or caring related feature then there will have been a lot of material as well as obviously from the PIP claim and the UC enhanced review which appears to have been to assist PIP's team (who had failed to collect information they sought).

atlantis187

We don't get the health element of UC we have never applied for this.

born_again

So does she claim carers element for the children?
As it would seem odd to miss out on the extra for lcwra or lcw.
Although this may conflict with caring side of things, so could that be another reason, this has been thrown up, in consistency between PIP claim & claimed caring 🤷‍♀️

Not knocking you here, just looking for reasons from the outside 👍