PIP Tribunal second attempt

leamingtonspaceman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82048820#Comment_82048820

But I've linked to a reputable article that clearly states that the condition can fluctuate, go into remission as you've said, but, conversely, can be episodic and CAN worsen.

So are you disputing the findings of the research? You've specifically stated ADHD doesn't get worse. But it doesn't take much research to discover that this is an incorrect 'assumption.'

You can't possibly have read and digested the study I linked to in the time between me posting it and you responding.

I'd suggest reading the study and searching for the research into how ADHD can worsen in women.

I don't wish to argue with you and I'm not doing so. But these general statements are simply that, generalisations that don't apply to everyone.

This is where the DWP and tribunals are lacking. They don't have the time, resources (or the inclination?) to look more deeply. As a previous contributor has stated, these generalisations are used and extrapolated into fantastical notions that don't stand up to scrutiny.

There are a multitude of reasons why ADHD can become an issue in adulthood where it wasn't as a child or in your earlier life. You have a whole new raft of responsibilities in adult life that you never have when you're younger, and due to it now being proven that ADHD can be episodic, it might be that you COULD manage a lot of things that you now can't.

magicmoneyportaloo

I think PIP is always going to be a nightmare to claim in that by making it about daily living and mobility needs, it comes down to interpretation, and as inferences are allowed, there's a huge amount of shenanigans that can occur in a health assessor's, decision makers or tribunals reasoning and therefore decisons. I feel for you, OP.

As for some of the commenters here, I think there are better hobbies then debating the nature of the OP's wife's disablement, I'm sure the DWP would be proud though.

Murphybear

Hi op

I’m sorry to read about your problems. Some of the reasons they give sound somewhat ludicrous.

I’ve had a run in with the DWP twice over the last 12 years, about ESA then Pension Credit. On both occasions I asked my MP to intervene and got a positive result. I even got £50 compensation for the ESA claim

It might be worth contacting your MP to see if they can help.

leamingtonspaceman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82048945#Comment_82048945

Hi.

Thank you for this.

I agree that it's all about interpretation and all the other things you mentioned.

The whole basis of PIP regarding how a condition affects you and not the condition itself can be overly and unnecessarily complex at times.

There's something called 'The DSM V' and anyone or any organisation that is making decisions about people's psychological/mental disorders SHOULD be referring to it. But the DWP, the DWP's health professionals and the tribunals haven't even heard of it, which is concerning:

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition: DSM-5 https://share.google/TcDaSJ4IBbfhhpB4r

It's not an issue that others are debating my wife's health. It's fair game if I'm the one who mentioned it first. However, the anecdotal posts by some have to be flipped around to see how pointless they are. You'd never expect a PIP tribunal to consider evidence that something must apply to you just because it applies to someone else's husband. So why come on here and try to support a claim that's made by someone else simply because it's the case for your hubby.

Anyway... thank you for your post.

leamingtonspaceman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82049012#Comment_82049012

Thank you.

I did consider if contacting our MP might help.

My wife's first tribunal date was in December last year. Like many, she was extremely anxious and worked up about it. She connected to the tribunal, the judge introduced himself and the GP and disability advisor. He then went on to say that because of an error on their side regarding my wife's submission, they would not be able to proceed. So the hearing was postponed.

It was a fairly long wait for the second tribunal, the decision of which has now been set aside.

So, despite the title of the thread being about a second attempt, it's actually a third attempt.

How many times must someone be put through the worry, anxiety and distress created by waiting for these tribunals before it becomes farcical and detrimental to the claimant's health?

Altior

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82048945#Comment_82048945

The OP started the discussion obviously. This isn't Reddit, it is often robust debate on MSE. In general, nobody has a divine right to PIP, just as they feel they should get it. Those who make decisions don't live with claimants 24 hours a day to observe the reality, and any claimant can say anything when filling out a form, or being interviewed. Therefore evidence also needs to be presented to support the claims, and it needs to align with what is being claimed. There may also be contrarian evidence as well.

For my part, I am/was encouraging the OP to view the opposing perspective. He doesn't feel that the list in the first post is relevant. Even without the full context, it is reasonable to say that at least some of them are. It might be that someone who was holding down a job in a post office quite recently is now unable to pass the threshold for being able to personally budget, but there would need to be a stack of evidence to explain why things in that space have declined so rapidly (again, it doesn't mean it isn't true, but the default for me is that someone who worked in a post office recently is well able to budget at the level required to pass the PIP test, as in get 0 points, can manage both simple and complex budgeting decisions unaided). Significant context is that obviously, we've not seen the supporting independent evidence that supports the claimed rapid decline.

Spoonie_Turtle

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82048831#Comment_82048831

https://pipinfo.net/activities/engaging-with-other-people-face-to-face

"Activity 9 considers a claimant’s ability to engage with other people, which means to interact face-to-face in a contextually and socially appropriate manner, understand body language and establish relationships."

marcia_

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82049342#Comment_82049342

the word is and meaning both are true

leamingtonspaceman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82049266#Comment_82049266

Regarding budgeting and my wife working in a post office, I don't see the connection?

Would you say that because someone is able to work on a supermarket checkout, they are able to budget?

Working at a post office counter doesn't involve budgeting. You're not giving financial advice and you're not helping customers to budget. You're using automated systems that even go as far as telling you how much change to give a customer. You're not dealing with your own finances, and you're not dealing with anyone else's finances. All you're doing is what the customer asks you to do, with their own money.

When someone wants to buy a book of stamps, it's not up to the person working on the post office counter to ask them if they can afford them.

All it means is that you know how to use the post office system. It's nothing to do with your own, personal budgeting.

Working in a post office didn't give my wife the ability to not waste and spend thousands of pounds on unnecessary purchases, whilst not making sure that money for important, mandatory payments for things such as energy and council tax was available. Whilst she was working at the post office, her own finances were in a mess.

A person's mental state can decline very quickly, almost immediately in some cases. Emotional breakdowns can come on over time but can happen quickly if the person has been desperately trying to hold onto their sanity, but the slightest thing causes them to snap.

Spoonie_Turtle

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82049347#Comment_82049347

Right so if someone can only briefly interact with coworkers and retail workers but can't establish social relationships, then their brief interactions don't mean they can do the activity. If they can't do the 'and'.