PIP Tribunal second attempt

Ms_Chocaholic

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82043255#Comment_82043255

I'd be interested to hear how it was terrible.

leamingtonspaceman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82044291#Comment_82044291

I did describe it in a previous post. However, somebody reported that post and I received an email from MSE explaining that, whilst it didn't break any rules, it could be seen as defamatory and could result in court action.

"The MSE Forum is a space that often deals with sensitive issues and is of immense benefit to those who view and contribute.

It’s important to understand that your post(s) could land you in court, being sued for defamation, and that you may have to pay substantial costs.



The Forum Team does not decide if a post is defamatory or investigate claims made in a post. Therefore, be aware that you may be liable for what you write in a post."

So I deleted all of the details.

Maybe someone from Fightback frequents this forum?

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82044467#Comment_82044467

I expect you're correct someone from Fightback flagged it.

Muttleythefrog

Agree with advice given… treat as if first tribunal appeal… but learn from what has gone before anything that could be important. I've seen some reasons as given by the tribunal judge in some of the assessment reports before… including my own… the 'you cannot have cognitive impairment as you attended normal schools' (yes… 20 years plus earlier!)… driving licence has been wildly used for all sorts even in cases where claimant doesn't drive. Extrapolation gone mad which I'd say is much less likely in tribunal setting typically because they have more evidence and take more seriously the broad range of evidence… usually!

leamingtonspaceman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82045049#Comment_82045049

Hi.

It's a bit of a relief to hear that sone of the frankly ludicrous reasons given by the judge in my wife's case aren't unique.

I'm a bit confused though as you've said that you've seen these reasons given by a tribunal judge before (presumably as the result of a tribunal?), but you've then said that it's much less likely in a tribunal setting?

Could you clarify as the two statements seem at odds with one another.

Thank you in advance...

Muttleythefrog

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82045105#Comment_82045105

Ah.. to clarify… the reasons given by the judge in this case mirror some of the things I've seen in assessment reports (and then typically conveyed to DWP decision)… but I've not really seen anything like this reported from tribunals… there'll be other examples out there but I imagine much less common as tribunals typically will take a look at all relevant evidence and try to get to truths not try to extrapolate wildly…another example from my own case in assessment report it said I had many friends and shopped regularly (implying I socialised without difficulty and had no difficulties going out)… what it failed to say was I had one friend and I shopped online. Seems a few things went awry in your wife's case… the 'not enough days in week' a good indicator maybe the tribunal were having a particularly poor day because as another poster points out.. if the tribunal hear something that doesn't make sense (such as because they misheard) they should be querying so they understand.. I mean that's common sense for ordinary communication let alone a fact finding effort for formal consideration!

Once a PIP claim is established poor assessment risks must erode as previous evidence and decisions assist as benchmarks and we know most re-assessments return same outcome. So if a case can be made for sufficient point scoring descriptors for award then I advise persisting.

leamingtonspaceman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82045138#Comment_82045138

Thank you for this... really appreciate it.

Your experience regarding friends was also something that was a component of my wife's tribunal decision.

As mentioned, she worked in a post office until 2023 when she had to stop working due to her health conditions. She never socialised with her work colleagues or went to their houses or vice versa. I'm not a sociable person in that respect either and it's rarely we have visitors. However, all three members of the panel were fairly hard on my wife and were insistent that she MUST have socialised with her ex-work colleagues. They also made the assumption that I bring friends home and they specifically said to my wife "How do you react when your husband brings a friend home?" They just assumed that I do that. I'd never bring a friend home unannounced. I wasn't able to comment on that.

They also asked my wife what she does when I'm at work. How does she cope. They assumed I work but I don't. They then asked ME to explain why I don't work and I gave the obvious answer that I care for my wife.

So they made incorrect assumptions several times but when corrected the judge appeared to be annoyed.

The thing we also don't quite understand is that the period of assessment in question at the tribunal was October 2023 to October 2024. These were the dates that my wife was quite clearly told to concentrate on and how she was between these dates. And yet the judge concentrated on a period of time she worked at a post office that was outside these dates.

My wife already has a fresh tribunal date at the end of July which she was informed of today.

marcia_

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82045315#Comment_82045315

socialising doesn't necessarily mean bringing people into your home. If you work with someone you need to talk to them and often about non work matters, that is socialising

sammyjammy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82045660#Comment_82045660

but thats not true in some cases, there is a person at my work, perfectly pleasant if asked about something relating to work but does not engage with anything non work related. Will smill and nod a hello first thing if someone initiates it but otherwise sits quitely and gets on with their work. Engages in meetings on a professional level to a point but if the meeting is over and we are chatting generally they will leave.

Most people are very respectful of their needs.

marcia_

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82045719#Comment_82045719

chatting in meetings is also socialising, one can speak with others or not