PIP Tribunal failed...

YBR

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

As to the analogy with losing legs, is ADHD something that you have lifelong, even if there is a moment in time when it was diagnosed. Similarly endometriosis? How much do these fluctuate over time?

It may be that the Tribunal failed to understand how your wife's health/abilities have changed, or how much they had been propped up by her parents previously or that perhaps her passport, driving licence, bank account and wardrobe are the legacy of better times.

I hope you can find a way forwards.

sheramber

I think the reference to being able to budget because of her employment is because, unless something changed why would she now be unable to budget.

What has caused the change?

Humbug2015

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81922767#Comment_81922767

My wife isn't keen on me divulging too much about her health on a public forum, hence the slight reticence to go too deeply into what affects her.

What I can say is that whilst working at the post office and dealing with other people's money, her own finances were in a mess. Debts, compulsive spending on things she never even used or needed. Late payments on credit cards etc., late fees, bank account overdraft. All of this was explained in the supporting evidence. As an example, she paid £4,000 to do an online course and never even started it. She knew it was £4,000, she knew that she had credit card debts of more than £4,000, but still chose to make the decision that the course was more important than paying off her debts. And those kind of decisions are linked to ADHD and depression in ways that are too intricate to go into here, but were documented in the submission.

So being able to add and subtract and do simple mathematics and work in a post office have no correlation to your ability to make the right decisions. It's a speculative and reductive position to take and is in my humble opinion archaic and wholly misplaced.

The other thing I don't really understand is why do the DWP not turn up to these tribunals and be the ones to put their point across? Because they don't take part, the tribunal is not truly impartial or independent because they have to effectively represent the DWP and make their case. It's effectively another medical assessment carried out by a tribunal that should actually hear the evidence from both sides. But they only want to hear it in-person from one side. That isn't fair.

I know I'm just expressing personal opinions and that what I think doesn't make any difference. That doesn't mean that what's going on is right.

I have a family member who gets high rate care and mobility components of PIP. They received a ten-year award eight years ago that is due for reassessment in 2028. She received almost all of her points based on a GP report. This included the budgeting and managing money aspects. She also supplied lots of personal evidence explaining how she was reckless with money. She'd also told the DWP that she had recently worked in a bank. No challenge at all was made against her evidence based on the fact she'd worked in a bank. She also had her own bank account.

Is she to believe that when she has to be reassessed in two years time, will the fact that she worked in a bank in 2015, and has a bank account be evidence that she can budget and manage money? If the law is consistent then that should be the case. But she's been receiving high rate PIP for eight years with the DWP knowing she previously worked in a bank and has a bank account.

It's either one or the other. You can't apply a rule to one claimant and not another even if their circumstances are different. It's a prescriptive law that has no nuance from what I can see?

I know you've said "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 that's within the confines of their job. A PIP assessment isn't about work. That's another benefit entirely. There are plenty of people who can do sums in their job but you look at their personal finances and they're a complete mess. The two things are separate.

Is that not obvious?

Some people get PIP and work. It could be argued that if you can manage to get up in the morning, get washed and dressed, have breakfast, get to work and do your job, then that pretty much means you should get no points at all in a PIP assessment?

Humbug2015

Who is best to assist with an appeal to an Upper Tribunal?

Is it best to go with a solicitor that specialises in such things, or go with CAB or a local welfare rights group?

My wife did try using 'Fightback for Justice' but found them to be very autocratic and insensitive. They just want your money.

ayupmeduck

ADHD would very much likely have been ruled out as she was driving & working in a role that I assume would require concentration etc. No issues with her role when she was working and no restrictions on her license are looked at. Can't comment on the endometriosis. If depression was the reason for no longer working or struggling to work and is not now stable with medication then that should have been taken in to account.

peteuk

The lost legs analogy is wrong, in this case, regardless of the state of her finances it’s the ability to do so. She has shown the ability by working in the post office. Just because she doesn’t, doesn’t mean she can’t, which is the way PIP will view it.

As noted from a mental health point of view she would only score 2 points and so even if you were correct, it doesnt change the outcome.

PIP assessments will take the path of less resistance, and so if there is evidence that supports a claimant can do something, it’s taken and used. I don’t always agree with this approach nor the PIP view on things. Its not always that cut and dry.

otb666

I had endometriosis only discovered when I needed a hysterectomy for fibroid. I dont have any symptoms now. Never realised I had endometriosis as just assumed it was normal the heavy periods etc. Work was doable just had to make sure I was well padded out down below. I am suggesting perhaps see GP for referral to hospital for solution as well as they have solutions for this and you dont have to suffer. Also I see the NHS have adverts on TV for talking therapies for ADHD available now. I dont want to dismiss your wife illness ( I have no knowledge of benefits etc) but just wanted to share incase you were not aware. I hope your wife finds solution. I did and feel great now

Humbug2015

This is what I don't understand.

Yes, she was working in a post office. Yes, she drove to work. But it was becoming increasingly difficult to hold down that job and function. So, she left the job and sold her car because she could no longer continue.

She stopped working altogether and this was in October 2023. At this point she claimed contributions based ESA and was placed in the support group. Her PIP claim would have started in June 2024.

The tribunal themselves mentioned several times that my wife must talk ONLY about how she was from March 2024 to March 2025, the qualifying period.

And yet she stopped working in the post office in October 2023. So why are the tribunal adamant that the only period of time where anything is relevant to her claim is March 2024 to March 2025, but focus pretty much their whole case on something she stopped doing in October 2023?

What if she applied for PIP in ten years time? Are they still going to say "You worked in a post office 13 years ago"...???

Why have a period that the tribunal covers, but they go outside this period for evidence to reject the claim?

That can't be right.

Humbug2015

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81922848#Comment_81922848

Work and private life are two separate things. Many people can hold down a responsible job but their personal life can be a mess.

Why ask my wife for examples of how she's squandered thousands of pounds of her own money, but continue to believe that this can't be the case because she worked in a post office?

There hasn't been a 'change.' My wife squandered huge amounts of her own money whilst she was working. She would spend money on frivolous things whilst having debts that she should have used the money to pay off. She was doing this whilst she was working. She carried on doing this after she stopped working with her ESA money.

The idea that if you can handle money in a job then you're capable of making responsible decisions about your own money is not always the case. My wife wasn't stealing money from work and spending that recklessly. She wasn't a financial advisor. She wasn't helping people in the post office budget their money.

This is complete nonsense that there is any correlation between working in a post office and thus being able to budget and make responsible decisions about her own finances.

Humbug2015

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81923574#Comment_81923574

Working in a post office is just that. You don't offer financial advice to anyone. You don't do any budgeting or have control of the financial state of the business, it's the owners of the post office that do that.

You can have money coming in and spend it recklessly and irresponsibly but this has absolutely no bearing on your job.

It's a little like saying someone who works in an off-licence can't have a drinking problem. That a mechanic wont ever have an oil leak from his own car. That all doctors will be in perfect health.

It's an absolute nonsense.

It's nonsense too that reckless and irresponsible spending is a choice, that because you handle money in your job then you can 'choose' to either responsibly or irresponsibly spend your own money.

People have psychological conditions, compulsions, addictions, habits. They do irresponsible things. They drink, they take drugs, they eat and become overweight or develop diabetes. But often these things are not a choice because other factors make people act this way. People have compulsive spending and gambling habits. But do we still live in an age where you just tell people who do those things to "Stop doing it because you know it isn't right."

In my wife's case, "Stop being irresponsible and reckless with your own money. You work in a post office so should know better."

That really isn't how it works and I think members of a PIP tribunal should really be aware of that.