PIP Tribunal failed...

Humbug2015

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81924130#Comment_81924130

Agreed, but likewise lots of people are reckless with their own money because of psychological issues despite holding down a responsible job. Working in a post office doesn't make you a financial advisor. You don't give financial advice to customers. You don't make financial and/or budgeting decisions about the business. As I've already said, it's a reductive aspect of the assessment.

The focus is on that one point because the tribunal focused on it almost entirely throughout the hearing. Pretty much every question asked and answered was then followed by "You worked in a post office so..."

The disability advisor assumed my wife interacted socially with her co-workers outside of work and asked her how she coped on "nights out" with her co-workers. This despite her evidence clearly stating she doesn't socialise at all and the reasons why.

The judge wrongly assumed that I work full-time even though the supporting evidence stated multiple times that I don't. So I had to explain why I don't even though, as the panel makes clear, that the tribunal is about my wife.

The judge also assumed that I bring people home unexpectedly and asked how my wife copes with this or would cope with it if it happened. It's not something I'd ever do or have ever done.

And I keep asking this but it's important.

The qualifying period for the tribunal was March 2024 to March 2025. The tribunal were clear about this and mentioned it several times that my wife must focus on this period. And yet they continued to focus on her working in a post office up until October 2023. Why can they choose to use events outside the qualifying period to support their decision?

The written summary of the decision was also just 80% around "You worked in a post office so..."

If you're getting uncomfortable with it constantly being mentioned, imagine how my wife feels.

I'm still aghast at the fact ten minutes of the hearing was taken up with asking my wife questions about my wife having or not having a wardrobe. There was literally an exchange about this that all three members of the panel individually asked about.

My point is that it seems as time goes by, tribunals are going to use more and more reductionist decisions to deny you PIP. How long until "You live in a house/flat so you must know where it is, be able to open the door with a key and be able to get inside, turn on the lights and know where your stuff is. Therefore you have capability to do any number of things."

Humbug2015

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81924010#Comment_81924010

I agree that type 2 diabetes isn't a psychological condition. Likewise, debt isn't always down to mental health issues as you say. But that's a sweeping statement too, because many times it is.