PIP Tribunal second attempt

leamingtonspaceman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82051577#Comment_82051577

That's what she was told. Unless she's getting confused?

That particular thread really confuses us and it's only something I think we should address if she gets PIP.

fuzzzzy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82051651#Comment_82051651

So your wife provides 35 hours of care to you a week?

leamingtonspaceman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82051705#Comment_82051705

No. It's actually the other way around.

It's tough to decide who's doing the caring when you both have health problems. Mine are more psychological than physical, but my wife's are both.

Neither of us gets a carers element of UC.

Someone at the Job Centre advised us not to claim the carers element but suggested to wait until my wife either does or doesn't get PIP and then claim it retrospectively.

Maybe that was poor advice?

Muttleythefrog

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82051382#Comment_82051382

You've missed the issue I raised about the tribunal potentially knowing about her caring responsibilities from either other benefit claims or even oral testimony or for filling etc. You are best placed to tell us as you will likely have seen and heard all evidence available to the tribunal… but my immediate thought was it could explain the not enough days in week issue if it did arise…. because it is beyond belief a tribunal wouldn't realise 4-5 days is less than 7 days… and if they heard someone refer to 45 days in a week you'd expect them to query what they've heard or what the claimant understood the question to be…. however if they thought she had extensive responsibilities in a week and was able to carry them out then they may have thought 4-5 days a week of claimed problems was incompatible suggesting more than 7 days in a week… it was just the thought that entered my head as a logical explanation but it may be entirely irrelevant if the tribunal was unaware of the substance of her caring role.

Tribunals can seek further evidence if they desire such but it is likely you would know if they had.

huckster

Carers Element is only awarded on UC, if the caring is for 35 hours or more per week, the person being cared for is in receipt of a disability benefit such as PIP including care component and no one else is registered as carer for the person.

Someone can report caring for someone for 35 hours or more per week and say no to the person being in receipt of disability benefit as not awarded yet. They won't be awarded Carers Element and the caring will not be verified. The carer may still be in a work search category with a claimant commitment that requires work search.

Which is why some wait for PIP to be awarded and then ask for Carers Element to be backdated to date of PIP award.

Technically it is probably better to report caring for someone before PIP award. At least it is noted. And then if PIP is awarded, the caring can be reported again confirming person cared for in receipt of PIP and effective date of the reporting noting date of PIP award. This then makes decision making process for backdating of Caring Element easier.

leamingtonspaceman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82051751#Comment_82051751

Thanks for this. Sorry I missed that.

There isn't a caring role to consider. It was never mentioned at the tribunal.

I can only reiterate that the judge has specifically and unequivocally stated in his statement of reasons that "Mrs x cannot possibly be in pain for 4-5 days a week as there are not enough days in the week." That's it. No mention of why that is or might be. No reference to any caring responsibilities or other benefits she receives. During the tribunal she did tell the panel that she is in pain 4-5 days a week, as she did in her supporting evidence and as confirmed in the DWP health professional medical report.

I don't think you can be clearer than that?

I agree... it is beyond belief.

Another reason that we also find beyond belief is the one where the judge concluded that my wife cannot be in as much pain as she says because she attended the tribunal.

I didn't know there was a choice not to attend the tribunal? By that I mean we all have choice, so she could have chosen not to attend the tribunal. But then she would have automatically defaulted to not receiving PIP.

Is there an option available to claimants to not attend the tribunal but still have the case decided upon? I know you can ask for a paper based decision but we were advised that these aren't very successful.

I don't know why this is the case as hearing confirmation from a claimant in person that all they've submitted is true seems like a system that's merely designed to make life more difficult for the claimant? More so when the DWP health professional has confirmed this too.

The result of all of this is that a judge has set the decision aside and has categorically stated that the tribunal erred in law in several points and completely dismissed my wife's supporting evidence. The judge hasn't said that the tribunal failed to take into account SOME of the evidence. They've stated that the tribunal failed to take into account ANY of it.

The judge has even recommended that the new tribunal be a two-hour hearing to accommodate the amount of breaks my wife will almost certainly need to accommodate her toileting needs and acute pain.

leamingtonspaceman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82051786#Comment_82051786

This would seem to back up the advice given by the Job Centre?

huckster

Yes that would mostly back up what JC have said

leamingtonspaceman

I'm going to take a break from this thread for a couple of days.

I appreciate everybody's help and input but it's all getting a bit too much to take onboard right now and my own mental health is suffering as a result.

I guess it's just a question of waiting to see how the third tribunal goes and then take it from there.

Muttleythefrog

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82051938#Comment_82051938

Probably wise… it's easy to overthink and overindulge. Ultimately it is hard to imagine the tribunal will be anything like as incompetent at the first and I think I'd work on that presumption. The waiting for it obviously isn't helpful.