PIP Tribunal second attempt

Altior

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82046543#Comment_82046543

You're mixing a lot of things in my opinion.

I will use one variable to truncate the point.

If an individual has irresponsible spending habits that are linked to a medical/psychological condition, why would they not allow a trusted person to take control of the spending, when that is an available option? It's not about disability, it's the impact of that disability, and the mitigation taken. ie individuals are expected to mitigate their conditions where reasonable. If you can't walk unaided due to a bad knee, you're expected to use an aid (eg walking stick) to take pressure off that knee.

It doesn't follow that someone who decides to retain a bank account of their own is capable of budgeting, but why would they is the question, if there is a huge risk of irresponsible spending. It suggests at least that the risk is exaggerated. It might not be, but as above, decision makers are considering weight of evidence in addition to what people claim.

marcia_

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82046187#Comment_82046187

if claiming one can not communicate with others without assistance more than social niceties without a support person. After all colleagues often need to discuss projects and work they are undertaking as well as staff meetings with colleagues without support of another person.

HillStreetBlues

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

It has to of a certain standard and not limited to people you know well.

HJ v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)

18.Moreover, it is possible or even likely that many or even all of the individuals with
whom the Appellant interacted were known to her. There is no indication in the
regulations that the term “engage socially” is limited to engagement with people
who a claimant knows. Indeed the use of the word “others” in the definition of
“engage socially”, which is unqualified, strongly suggests that it is not so limited.
Moreover, the requirement to be able to establish relationships suggests that the
activity is not limited to considering engagement with those known to a claimant.
Although it is not itself a statement of the law, I am reinforced in this by the PIP
Assessment Guide published by the Department for Work and Pensions which
states (page 122):
“When considering whether claimants can engage with others, consideration should
be given to whether they can engage with people generally, not just those people
they know well”.

leamingtonspaceman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82046593#Comment_82046593

I understand all you're saying but still feel it's an extremely grey area.

Regarding a claimant being expected to mitigate their conditions, this isn't the case. It has been established and there is case law that explains that there are many barriers to seeking to mitigate any medical conditions you may have.

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82046593#Comment_82046593

With a walking aid that is legislated for it's in the criteria, but if walking aid didn't help no one can can be force to have a knee replacement to mitigate it.

leamingtonspaceman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82046797#Comment_82046797

Good example.

There could be many reasons why a person does not have a knee replacement.

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82046823#Comment_82046823

The DWP could never dictate having "trusted person" managing a person's bank account, as that trusted person might end up being a Peter Murrell.
So i can't see that being an issue with your wife's case.

EDIT: I'm not comparing you to him, it was a general comment

Altior

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82046797#Comment_82046797

I don't get the inference. Someone who refuses to use a stick (for eg out of a sense of embarrassment) if it is perceived to be of material benefit isn't ruled out of PIP. It just diminishes the evidence for their case. Someone who can no longer reasonably manage their own spending (and has a history of this) isn't ruled out of PIP if they refuse to give up control of their bank account where they have access to funds. It just weakens the evidence for that element. Arguably if they are paid PIP into that account, there is even greater risk of 'irresponsible spending' (they'll have more to spend that is intended to practically mitigate the impact of their disabilities).

leamingtonspaceman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82047129#Comment_82047129

You're right that they wouldn't be ruled out of receiving PIP, but it does seem to be the case that they are.

There is case law regarding this issue and it has been ruled that if a claimant doesn't seek out or take advantage of anything that may improve their conditions, this should not be seen as diminishing their case. This is because there are many barriers that could prevent it. Not seeking treatment for a medical condition for example, whilst seemingly paradoxical, should not diminish the seriousness of the medical condition.

My wife was advised to use the case law involved regarding counselling. The tribunal found it hard to believe her depression was that bad as she hadn't sought private counselling. The barrier to that is mainly cost. It's around £150 a session. But there are other barriers.

A really good example is hearing loss. I know quite a few people who have profound hearing loss, my brother-in-law, my mother-in-law, her sister, my best friends mother. My sister spent years nagging my brother-in-law to get his hearing tested. Finally he did and needed hearing aids. He got them but rarely uses them. Same with my best friends mum. And my mother-in-law and her sister won't entertain the idea that they can't hear properly.

People will get their sight checked and wear glasses and not show any resistance, but there seems to be a stigma around hearing aids.

But if you were applying for PIP, and you had diagnosed hearing loss but didn't wear hearing aids, this should not weaken your case. The basics of it are that we have the freedom to do what we want. If you are diagnosed with hearing loss, and have the evidence to prove it, that should be all that the tribunal needs to know. It's not within their remit to be asking why you haven't sought treatment. That's nothing to do with them. All they need to know is that you have hearing loss and how does it affect you.

I think what is happening is that the tribunal panels are making decisions and there is a growing amount of case law that negates such decisions but the tribunal aren't aware of it.

We were told by the specialist who helped my wife that tribunals get confused by case law. Considering the tribunal consists of a judge, a GP and a disability advisor, it's quite concerning that people of such high standing can be confused by case law that impacts their decisions.

I know I keep going back to it, but the judge in my wife's case stated, in writing that there aren't enough days in a week to be in pain for 4-5 days of the week. This is a JUDGE... who has more than implied by his statement that there are a maximum of three days in a week.

I find that extremely concerning, especially as you can't use that as a reason to appeal because they haven't erred in law. But what they have done is use reasoning that has no basis in reality.

leamingtonspaceman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82046876#Comment_82046876

We didn't see it as an issue, but it was.

This is again an example of a tribunal overstepping their remit and being unaware of case law, even if you've highlighted it in your submission.

The remit of the tribunal is to establish your medical conditions and how they affect you. It's not for them to ask why you haven't sought treatment/help/support.

If you need a carer, but don't have one, you should not be assessed any differently to someone who needs a carer and does have one. The common denominator is, YOU NEED A CARER. If you don't want one, that's your choice.

Another example of case law is that the tribunal should look at an ESA assessment if the PIP claimant receives that too and chooses to submit that report. It has overlaps with PIP and is carried out by a DWP health professional.

The case law around that puts forward the fact that the DWP will use evidence from their appointed health professional that supports an ESA claim, but will ignore that evidence when used to support a PIP claim. It's the inconsistency. Their own appointed health professionals come to different conclusions when confronted with the same evidence. So the tribunal must consider an ESA report if it's submitted to support a PIP claim.

In my wife's case, they didn't.

It's the main reason the appeal judge set aside the decision, because the tribunal ignored all of my wife's evidence. That is what the judge explicitly stated in his decision to set aside the original judgement.