PIP Tribunal failed...

Humbug2015

My wife finally had her PIP Tribunal today and it was refused. The tribunal agreed with the DWP in giving her zero points for daily living and mobility.

It was a video tribunal and all three members were very dismissive of my wife. Regardless of the outcome, they actually came across as fairly rude and uncaring and the process felt like a cross-examination rather than a genuine attempt to understand my wife's conditions and how they affect her.

She has severe endometriosis, ADHD, severe depression and anxiety.

The main thrust of the tribunal was about my wife's ability to budget. In their decision they have appeared to suggest that because she has a bank account that she is capable of making budgeting decisions. They have also stated that she is capable of making budgeting decisions about her own finances because she worked on a post office on the counter up until October 2023. It was at this time she actually left the post office because she was too ill. Despite leaving the post office in October 2023, her claim for PIP would have begun in June 2024. I believe that the period that should have been taken into consideration was March 2024 to March 2025.

So would this be a mistake in law allowing an appeal to the Upper Tribunal?

This by no means appears to be the only error in law the tribunal have made.

They appeared to be critical of my wife because she has a bank account, a passport and a driving licence. They believe this demonstrates ability to manage finances, ability to travel and ability to drive.

They have stated that she does have a diagnosis of endometriosis but won't consider it because it's in her GP records only and not on a specific letter from a gynaecologist.

The tribunal decision also doesn't mention about probably 80% of the issues my wife feels she has that meet the PIP descriptors.

My wife is very disorganised. She often can't find her clothes and loses things. That's just a small component of wider issues relating to her ability to care for herself. The judge asked my wife if she has a wardrobe? She said that she does and he then dismissed her claims and literally said that you can't be disorganised with your clothing if you have a wardrobe.

Obviously we have to now request a statement of reasons and see what that lays out.

It just all seems rather odd that if you had a job that you left nine-months before your application, have a bank account, a passport, a driving licence and a wardrobe, that these alone means you do not qualify for PIP?

At the end of the tribunal, I was allowed to speak and briefly reiterated everything I'd submitted to support my wife. I'm actually a qualified psychotherapist and the judge asked me why I think my wife is depressed? Surely that is wrong?

Also, the judge himself was making huge assumptions about my wife's health and our own circumstances. He asked me how I have the time and energy to support her and go to work. I am not working and this was stated repeatedly in the bundle.

My wife was asked hypothetical questions about such things as how she'd react if I came home one night and brought some friends with me. That's not something I'd ever do and have never done my entire life.

I think we're just both completely aghast at the attitude of the tribunal.

I felt a lot of the questioning was irrelevant, hypothetical and completely unconnected to most of the reasons my wife applied for PIP.

They have also stated things that point to them not having read the bundle fully. An example of this is stating she has not seen anybody about depression since 2020 when there are multiple references to her seeking help after 2020.

I'm not expecting anybody to have answers regarding the above, but just wondered if what happened today is normal and/or possibly grounds for Upper Tribunal consideration?

Many thanks in advance for your thoughts.

HillStreetBlues

I do think they erred in law. Trying to use something that was ended 9 months before claim is simply wrong if they are no longer doing it. Basically the same as someone losing both legs and was told you aren't entitled as you could walk 9 months ago!
I also agree with other points such as ignoring a doctors report, I would be surprised if an appeal wasn't allowed.

Humbug2015

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81922252#Comment_81922252

Yes, we thought that was wrong. And we both came up with the same analogy you have regarding the nine-month period.

The judge was also making a lot of medically prescriptive comments and assumptions that are not within their remit.

The whole episode was shocking and very upsetting. The panel did not come across as impartial of independent. It felt like they were simply an extension of the DWP and had no medical knowledge at all. They couldn't seem to understand that medical conditions have their own symptoms, but you combine those symptoms together and they become more than the sum of the parts.

My wife has frequent issues with her bowel. It's cheaper to buy incontinence wear from Amazon than get it on prescription. And yet they only accept that she needs incontinence wear if it is prescribed by the GP and obtained with a prescription. The fact that it actually says she suffers incontinence on her medical record means nothing in of itself.

I felt like we were dealing with three people who had literally just arrived on earth.

NedS

I don't have any direct experience of taking a failed FT tribunal further, but my understanding is that to apply for leave to appeal to the UT if you must show the FT tribunal erred in law. To be successful at the UT you would also have to argue that if the FT had not erred in law, that the outcome would have been materially different.

The UT is not going to reconsider the FT's interpretation of her conditions, only if the outcome would have been materially different had they not erred in law, so this is not an opportunity to simply remake your case about how her conditions affect her (you have already done that).

I would recommend seeking legal representation if you want to take it further.

Humbug2015

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81922376#Comment_81922376

Thank you.

Yes, we're aware of this and realise exactly what we need to do to go to the UT.

The panel, and the same with the DWP throughout her claim, seemed fixated on the fact that my wife had worked in a post office up until nine months before her claim. This was used as a reason to pretty much try and discount much of her claim.

"You worked at a post office counter so..."

• You could manage and budget money
• You could not suffer social anxiety
• You could not have been depressed
• You could drive and organise and plan a journey

etc, etc...

Owning and using a wardrobe was seemingly reason to discount many factors around getting dressed and being organised. They actually asked her "Do you use a wardrobe."

Having a driving licence was apparently deemed reasonable to assume you drive and therefore go out a lot. This despite my wife not having a car since 2023 when she gave up work and feels unsafe driving.

Having a bank account went against her because up to October 2023 when she was working, she had her wages paid into it. That in of itself doesn't mean you can manage money. People who can't manage money and spend recklessly don't all close their bank accounts. And there were lots of examples submitted regarding my wife's reckless spending habits.

Having a passport was another tactic seemingly employed to make my wife's claim that she hardly goes out to be untrue.

They even said that us getting married went against her because she would have had to leave the house and socially engage with lots of people. We got married at a registry office with only witnesses supplied by the office and we went straight home afterwards. No guests or parties etc. It was one day.

I didn't realise that to be awarded PIP, you had to surrender your passport, driving licence and bank account, get rid of your wardrobe and not get married.

Surely these are fundamental human rights that have little to do with disability.

Also, when did it become the case that what is stated on your medical records is not considered to be acceptable because there isn't a separate letter to confirm it?

The process has left my wife in tatters and I felt despondent that this was the standard of people running a tribunal. I would be saying the same even if it had gone in my wife's favour.

peteuk

Firstly, they can use what ever evidence the want, it’s how they use it which is the issue.

Working with money in a post office, as it appears your wife isn't claiming any new cognitive conditions, then correctly the fact that she worked in a post office shows she can work out simple sums (I know there’s an argument about till use which does it for you). She would have had ADHD whilst working there. The fact that she has and maintains a bank account, equally shows she can budget. If she was that bad then someone would have taken control of her accounts.

If her gp hasn’t referred her to a gynaecologist then her endometriosis could be deemed as not significant enough to warrant PIP. Even a referral letter would help (eg please see this lovely lady who has now presented 5 time in the last 4 months with symptoms of server endometriosis. I have tried XY and Z medication with little to no effect)

Each activity falls under one or two condition types and so each condition is applied to the relevant activity. Eg arthritis is a physical condition so will only apply in X activity, so instantly Y and Z is zero pointed.

When I have more time I will check my training posters for the activities v conditions. It’s been said before but the threshold for PIP is very high, and although your wife is suffering it would appear she hasn’t reached that threshold. The next step is an error in law, so I’m not sure I can comment on that.

Humbug2015

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81922544#Comment_81922544

Thank you so much for your helpful reply.

I don't want to get too bogged down in the minutiae of things but there are aspects of this I don't understand.

Using the budgeting example. My wife was living with her elderly mother and her terminally ill father at the time of her claim. Her father dealt with all of the finances regarding the house. Yes, she had a bank account. Yes, she had been receiving her wages into it. But that doesn't mean you are thus exempt from reckless spending. You can still go overdrawn. You can still apply for credit cards and max them out and find yourself in a whole heap of financial difficulty. This was the case with my wife. Compulsive gamblers know what they've got in their bank account. They know how to use betting apps. They can apply for credit cards and keep betting using them as a funding source. And if the person carrying out this type of reckless spending isn't telling anyone, and the debts are piling up, who's going to take control of that person's financial affairs?

I used to do support work and had quite a number of clients in responsible jobs, some dealing with finances, who had ended up in tens of thousands of pounds of debt for various reasons and not told anybody up until the point it all came crashing down. At no point did anyone have to relinquish control of their bank account, even though they had recklessly got into debt through gambling, shopping, drug use and other nefarious activities. It was their own finances they couldn't handle and they were completely aware that they were getting into horrendous debt. But it seems that as far as PIP is concerned, that means you have no issues with budgeting or managing finances? But you obviously do. In some ways, knowing how to use financial services can actually lead to your downfall because you know how to get access to credit etc.

Obviously you don't get PIP just because you can't manage finances, but the prescriptive idea that you can only demonstrate lack of ability to manage finances and budget is if your finances have been legally off-loaded to someone else is, frankly, nonsense.

If you drive a car, you've passed your test and you're deemed competent to drive, you can still go out and get drunk and decide to drive. You could do this dozens of times and never tell anybody until you actually do it and kill someone. But will the defence be "Somebody should have taken away their licence to drive" even though nobody knew what the person was repeatedly doing?

Is that not obvious and common sense? If it isn't, then we are truly living in a time of blind stupidity.

And despite all of this, the time my wife worked in the post office ended nine months before she applied for PIP. That is outside the period that is relevant. She actively left the job and her mother and father said they would support her. So when her PIP claim began, she was effectively being supported financially by her parents, had no wages coming in and was effectively having her finances controlled by someone else. This is all in the evidence submitted and was discussed at the tribunal. But the judge repeatedly said that because my wife had a bank account, then she was able to control budgeting and finances.

And because they have attached so many reasons to dismiss her claim to that one facet does, from what I can see, appear totally relevant.

But because that period in her life ended 9-months before her PIP claim, that is outside the assessment window and is therefore an error in law that materially affects the whole claim... surely?

peteuk

Ive found my training posters ( I trainned as a PIP assessor in 2021 - lasted about 6 months)

Budgeting - only applies to Mental health and cognative conditions. From what I can see Mental Health is only considered in A and B and Cognitive in A through to D.

So regardless of how severe depresion is it would only score 0 or 2 - from what I can see from my training notes.

With her ADHD, having worked in the post office dealing with money, working out simple and complex sums then it is disregarded.

Taken from the assessmet criteria - PIP assessment guide part 2: the assessment criteria - GOV.UK

The aim of this activity is to assess whether the claimant is able to make budgeting decisions, either simple or complex.

Complex budgeting decisions are those that are involved in calculating household and personal budgets, managing and paying bills and planning future purchases.

Simple budgeting decisions are those that are involved in activities such as calculating the cost of goods and change required following purchases.

It further notes -

The age of the person or whether they have ever done any household budgeting is irrelevant – it is their ability to make budgeting decisions and their level of cognitive function that is relevant.

The question is if she went shopping and paid for £25.50 with £30.00 would she know to expect £4.50 change. (I totally understand who uses cash these days and who checks their change) but she has the proven cognative ability to do so as she worked in a post office. Im sure if she was taking the £30.00 for £25.50 and the till said £1.50 change she would have question it.

I also get that in this day and age, I dont need to budget as such, becasue I dont actually physically pay a bill. Its all done by direct debit, and I get paid last working day and then bill come out on the first.

Its difficult I totally understand, there is no consitancy which is part is correct because no two people with the same conditons are the same. But read into why I lasted 6 months, I went in to help people, be fair and honest. I learnt so much about conditions Id never come across, but the sytem is floored (in my opinion) and for some claimants the assessment was like torture.

Humbug2015

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81922646#Comment_81922646

Thank you for this and reading between the lines I can see why you only lasted a short time in the position you were in.

I get everything you are saying, but it still makes no sense to me.

As someone previously stated in the thread, if you had legs but lost them 9-months previously, would the tribunal say that this can't be considered because 9-months ago you did have legs?

I stand by my assertion that just because you can do simple maths and even be working in a job that involves working with money, that does not mean that you can manage your own finances and budget sufficiently. That is simply an absurd position to adopt.

Since we married and moved in together, I deal with all of our finances via our joint bank account. She still has an account but never uses it. So if she were to reapply and I stated that she doesn't have any input into managing our money or budgeting because of a history of reckless spending and debt, does that mean they would still say "But she worked in a post office." How long after you've worked in a post office is deemed sufficient to not take it into consideration?

I really appreciate that you've taken the time out to respond and go back through your training notes in order to give us some support. My wife is grateful too.

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81922376#Comment_81922376

You don't have to show the outcome would be different, you have to show that tribunal erred in law in making their decision.
Sometimes the UT will remake the decision, but I believe most times it sends it back to the 1st tier for a decision to be made by a different panel. They offer no opinion of whether the appeal will succeed or not when sent back.

For example according to the OP the panel refused to consider the endometriosis as it's only on GP records. I don't see any lawful bases not to consider it, there is nothing that states there has to be a specific letter from a gynaecologist. What the panel should do is consider the GP's report and made a decision based on that. The outcome points wise might be the same.

This isn't about if the decision is correct or not, it's about how they reached the decision.

Altior

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81922721#Comment_81922721

Being devil's advocate as such, what's the supporting evidence that your wife can no longer budget (for example)?

The losing legs analogy doesn't work for me, as there is physical evidence that an individual's legs are no longer there. The cliff edge for them is palpable and evident.

It's not to say it's not possible for someone to go from a job that required a reasonable level of financial competency to effectively not being able to do basic arithmetic, but it is quite a radical/significant change within less than a year, unusual. It's not to say that there aren't individuals that have experienced it (severe brain injury from a car accident for example, or immediate/rapid onset of dementia), but there would be straight forward evidence to support it (such as a financial PoA, not just a joint account, of which there are millions).

I personally don't see an obvious direct link from the conditions you've outlined, and going from at least a reasonable level of financial competency, to none, in a very short period of time. If the medical supporting evidence isn't there, then there must be some in your wife's actual financial affairs (such as a financial PoA and/or missing priority payments, late payment fees, erratic transactions et al).

I'm not saying this is the case (obviously), but if a couple got together and said, we'll just use our joint bank account from now on, and tell the DWP I can't budget, it wouldn't look any different to the case being put forward (in my view). But there may well be evidence that hasn't yet been shared on the thread.