Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Demerara
    • By Demerara 7th Jul 19, 8:14 PM
    • 153Posts
    • 147Thanks
    Demerara
    PIP MR request - Activity 9 - Clarification over case law
    • #1
    • 7th Jul 19, 8:14 PM
    PIP MR request - Activity 9 - Clarification over case law 7th Jul 19 at 8:14 PM
    Hi All,

    I am preparing my MR request as I think I should have been awarded points under Activity 9, engaging with others face to face.

    I have been looking at case law and was reading through CPIP/2685/2016 (SF v The Secretary of State [2016] UKUT 0543 (AAC)). There are some very knowledgeable people on the forum and I was wondering if anyone could confirm whether the judgment definitely stated that under this descriptor, the claimant can only be assessed in social situations and NOT professional ones? I have read through and did not interpret it this way but saw some articles saying so.

    Many thanks.
Page 3
    • poppy12345
    • By poppy12345 29th Sep 19, 1:18 PM
    • 6,219 Posts
    • 5,749 Thanks
    poppy12345
    Hi Everyone

    Another quick question - do I still need to evidence stuff for which points have already been awarded for? I am appealing because I feel I should have been awarded points in a different category as well as what they have already given me. I read online that the tribunal reversing decisions could also entail them deciding that no points/award should be given.

    Thank you.
    Originally posted by Demerara
    My advice would be you only need to put down which activity/descriptors you think you should have scored those points. If there's some you agree with then you don't need to mention those.


    If they do decide to take points away to either lower and existing award or remove it completely they will warn you before doing this. It will either be by letter before the hearing date or on the day of the hearing. If it's the latter then they will adjourn it to give you time to consider whether you want to take your existing award or risk it and carry on. This means that there's no risk.
    • Demerara
    • By Demerara 29th Sep 19, 1:19 PM
    • 153 Posts
    • 147 Thanks
    Demerara
    Thanks for the quick and informative response poppy12345
    • calcotti
    • By calcotti 29th Sep 19, 3:47 PM
    • 4,034 Posts
    • 2,740 Thanks
    calcotti
    My advice would be you only need to put down which activity/descriptors you think you should have scored those points. If there's some you agree with then you don't need to mention those.
    Originally posted by poppy12345
    I think it is worth just briefly mentioning the descriptors you agree with near the beginning. Just something like this:
    I agree that I have no difficulty with xxx, xx and should score no points for these activities.
    I agree with the points awarded for the level of difficulty I have with the following activities xxx, xxx
    I disagree with the points awarded for other activities as detailed in the following paragraphs.
    • Demerara
    • By Demerara 29th Sep 19, 3:48 PM
    • 153 Posts
    • 147 Thanks
    Demerara
    Thanks calcotti, very helpful
    • Alice Holt
    • By Alice Holt 29th Sep 19, 3:50 PM
    • 3,459 Posts
    • 4,025 Thanks
    Alice Holt
    Just to confirm poppy's (and calcotti's) points.

    My local CAB occasionally has claimants who have been guided by the tribunal panel to get CAB advice prior to a rescheduled hearing of their appeal. On looking through their evidence bundle, it often becomes apparent that their current award is at risk, should they decide to continue with their appeal.
    Normally these are claimants whose award has decreased (perhaps in moving from DLA to PIP), who don't understand the activities / descriptors, have failed to prepare for their hearing, and are appealing solely because their money has reduced.
    Regrettably a few decided, against our advice, to continue and then ended up losing what they had.

    On the other point.
    Sometimes the activities / points awarded in the report (or between assessments) are inconsistent - e.g. points awarded for needing to be prompted to (say) dress due to depression, but no points for needing prompting to wash / bathe due to depression.
    Then the rationale for the points given in the report can be used in a submission to support the argument that points should have been awarded for additional activities.
    This also (if the evidence is sound) has the benefit of, in effect, shoring up the points already awarded.
    Alice Holt Forest situated some 4 miles south of Farnham forms the most northerly gateway to the South Downs National Park.
    • Muttleythefrog
    • By Muttleythefrog 29th Sep 19, 4:08 PM
    • 16,577 Posts
    • 31,938 Thanks
    Muttleythefrog
    Sometimes the activities / points awarded in the report (or between assessments) are inconsistent - e.g. points awarded for needing to be prompted to (say) dress due to depression, but no points for needing prompting to wash / bathe due to depression.
    Originally posted by Alice Holt
    I don't want to distract from the thread but I will forever wonder what would have happened if I'd appealed (it would have had no material impact on award) on a point like this. There was a direct contradiction it appeared in my assessment report which in one activity concluded I needed prompting to wash yet in another didn't after using the toilet - conclusion - the cure for OCD is having a sh** (it hasn't worked.. I've tested daily since!). The point was not picked up on in reconsideration and I didn't take to appeal as wife said our marriage would be over if I tried basically.

    But I suspect there probably are often apparent contradictions or inconsistencies in these reports which could be useful to highlight where it benefits a descriptor argument.
    "Do not attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence" - rogerblack
    • calcotti
    • By calcotti 29th Sep 19, 6:52 PM
    • 4,034 Posts
    • 2,740 Thanks
    calcotti
    Sometimes the activities / points awarded in the report (or between assessments) are inconsistent - e.g. points awarded for needing to be prompted to (say) dress due to depression, but no points for needing prompting to wash / bathe due to depression.
    Then the rationale for the points given in the report can be used in a submission to support the argument that points should have been awarded for additional activities.
    This also (if the evidence is sound) has the benefit of, in effect, shoring up the points already awarded.
    Originally posted by Alice Holt
    But I suspect there probably are often apparent contradictions or inconsistencies in these reports which could be useful to highlight where it benefits a descriptor argument.
    Originally posted by Muttleythefrog
    Very good point. Also worth just checking that the points awarded are consistent with the decision text. I have see instances where the text says I agree that you need an aid to do ... but then no points have been awarded. In such an instance it is obviously sensible to highlight this.
    • Muttleythefrog
    • By Muttleythefrog 29th Sep 19, 8:08 PM
    • 16,577 Posts
    • 31,938 Thanks
    Muttleythefrog
    Very good point. Also worth just checking that the points awarded are consistent with the decision text. I have see instances where the text says I agree that you need an aid to do ... but then no points have been awarded. In such an instance it is obviously sensible to highlight this.
    Originally posted by calcotti
    I recall even the case raised on here where the report appeared to justify choice of the zero point scoring descriptor by stating word for word a point scoring one. I can't remember how that turned out but initially I think they called to point out an obvious error and the DWP wouldn't budge. Spitting Image is apparently coming back... they should have a puppet of a DWP DM.
    "Do not attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence" - rogerblack
    • Alice Holt
    • By Alice Holt 29th Sep 19, 8:09 PM
    • 3,459 Posts
    • 4,025 Thanks
    Alice Holt
    Also worth just checking that the points awarded are consistent with the decision text. I have see instances where the text says “I agree that you need an aid to do ...” but then no points have been awarded. In such an instance it is obviously sensible to highlight this.
    Originally posted by calcotti
    Another good point.

    With the poor quality of some of the assessments and DWP decision making, it is hardly surprising that appeal success rates stand at over 70% (and that hearing waits for a tribunal hearing are so lengthy).


    With apologies to the OP for diverting from his thread.

    I have posted this before, but I think it merits repetition.
    A colleague at my local Citizens Advice has a 100% benefit appeal success rate (as a representative) in the current financial year. Total annual benefits gained for clients, through appeals since April, total over 450,000.

    For me, this illustrates just how badly flawed the assessment process can be. After all, two DWP decision makers are involved before the appeal is lodged. But when these appeals come before a tribunal with a CAB written submission - all these appeals have been allowed.

    Surely the DWP should have a more thorough reconsideration process?
    If as an employee, every single decision I made was reversed by an independent body - would I still be in a job?
    Last edited by Alice Holt; 29-09-2019 at 8:15 PM.
    Alice Holt Forest situated some 4 miles south of Farnham forms the most northerly gateway to the South Downs National Park.
    • Demerara
    • By Demerara 5th Oct 19, 9:01 AM
    • 153 Posts
    • 147 Thanks
    Demerara
    Good morning All,

    I have now lodged my appeal online ... whilst filling in the form, it was mentioned that evidence could be sent later on and an email would be sent with the info as to where evidence should be sent. I have not received any such email though I have the email confirmation of the appeal request going through. Any ideas of what is happening? As a side note, the way the form is completed online is constantly changing .. at least this is what I saw over the past few weeks of attempting to fill it in.

    Thank you.
    • Alice Holt
    • By Alice Holt 5th Oct 19, 10:45 AM
    • 3,459 Posts
    • 4,025 Thanks
    Alice Holt
    Good morning All,

    I have now lodged my appeal online ... whilst filling in the form, it was mentioned that evidence could be sent later on and an email would be sent with the info as to where evidence should be sent. I have not received any such email though I have the email confirmation of the appeal request going through. Any ideas of what is happening? As a side note, the way the form is completed online is constantly changing .. at least this is what I saw over the past few weeks of attempting to fill it in.

    Thank you.
    Originally posted by Demerara
    Have you received the evidence bundle from the DWP?
    This can stretch to 100 plus pages, as it includes your original PIP form, the disputed assessment, the DWP decision makers reasoning, and (if a renewal) previous assessments and decisions.

    I'm not sure how you will receive this for an online appeal. Because of the sheer number of pages, a paper copy is likely to be helpful, as relevant points can be more easily identified, ordered and highlighted.

    I would suggest that you hold fire on submitting your evidence until you have received this bundle.
    As you can then directly address any specific points in the assessment / DM's reasoning, and tailor your submission (and evidence) to counter the DWP arguments.
    Alice Holt Forest situated some 4 miles south of Farnham forms the most northerly gateway to the South Downs National Park.
    • Demerara
    • By Demerara 5th Oct 19, 10:47 AM
    • 153 Posts
    • 147 Thanks
    Demerara
    Thanks AliceHolt

    No I haven't ... starting to make sense now though after your post. I am wondering if it was a mistake to decide to do it on my own without a representative as I am so tired these days I have little energy to do research and read through the process.
    • poppy12345
    • By poppy12345 5th Oct 19, 11:02 AM
    • 6,219 Posts
    • 5,749 Thanks
    poppy12345
    I'm not sure how you will receive this for an online appeal. Because of the sheer number of pages, a paper copy is likely to be helpful, as relevant points can be more easily identified, ordered and highlighted.
    Originally posted by Alice Holt
    The bundle will be received as a paper copy.
    • Illbedamned
    • By Illbedamned 8th Oct 19, 6:20 PM
    • 46 Posts
    • 30 Thanks
    Illbedamned
    Interesting post

    On the one hand i" function" at work and speak to people, because i have to. I cannot afford to live off SSP so no matter how bad 'im feeling i have to at least appear to function at work.

    But outside of work? I've been out socially once in the last year, i have no friends (actually none...thought i had one left but shes screwed me over too so back to zero), i actively avoid socialising with people because it makes me anxious and i am unable to maintain or start new friendships. I pretty much don't see or speak to anyone outside of work. Not sure how that works with PIP
    • Demerara
    • By Demerara 1st Nov 19, 6:39 PM
    • 153 Posts
    • 147 Thanks
    Demerara
    I have now received the bundle from DWP, they keep banging on about "no evidence of cognitive and mental health issues" ... I said I needed social support due to mental fatigue resultant from my disability which means that this impacts on my ability in being able to socially engage!!

    Anyway, would be grateful for guidance about what next.
    • Demerara
    • By Demerara 4th Nov 19, 5:20 PM
    • 153 Posts
    • 147 Thanks
    Demerara
    Hi all, I have received an email asking me to help test the online appeal service. Any advice/experience of it?
    • Alice Holt
    • By Alice Holt 4th Nov 19, 6:25 PM
    • 3,459 Posts
    • 4,025 Thanks
    Alice Holt
    I have now received the bundle from DWP, they keep banging on about "no evidence of cognitive and mental health issues" ... I said I needed social support due to mental fatigue resultant from my disability which means that this impacts on my ability in being able to socially engage!!

    Anyway, would be grateful for guidance about what next.
    Originally posted by Demerara
    That DWP wording is fairly standard and tbh I wouldn't bother addressing it in your submission (other than perhaps a brief mention that they haven't fully considered the mental fatigue and how you are after any social engagement - the repeatedly criteria comes in here) .
    The important thing to to explain how the mental fatigue resulting from your disability impacts on your ability to socially engage. Give examples - a summary of a typical week could be helpful. If you can get written confirmation from family / friends / colleague's to include with the submission.
    Just build you case (with reference to your PIP2 form if you covered it there) and make it as strong as possible.
    It sounds like the DWP haven't taken account of your particular difficulties, so their rationale need not be directly countered.

    Sometimes the assessment report section on functional history can be useful. You might have told the assessor things that support your case, but that the assessor and DWP DM went on to ignore or dismiss. So, it's worth having a careful look through this section of the report to see what the assessor noted.
    Any useful comments, especially if consistent with your PIP form and MR form - can be quoted on your submission (with reference to the page numbers) to support your case. As mentioned before, the reliability test will be crucial (in combination with variability).
    Alice Holt Forest situated some 4 miles south of Farnham forms the most northerly gateway to the South Downs National Park.
    • Demerara
    • By Demerara 4th Nov 19, 8:29 PM
    • 153 Posts
    • 147 Thanks
    Demerara
    Thanks Alice Holt
    • Demerara
    • By Demerara 9th Nov 19, 7:31 PM
    • 153 Posts
    • 147 Thanks
    Demerara
    Hi Everyone,

    Yet another question ... does DLA case law still apply to PIP?

    Thanks!
    • Alice Holt
    • By Alice Holt 9th Nov 19, 7:56 PM
    • 3,459 Posts
    • 4,025 Thanks
    Alice Holt
    Hi Everyone,

    Yet another question ... does DLA case law still apply to PIP?

    Thanks!
    Originally posted by Demerara
    No, as they are different benefits with different criteria and regulations.

    What aspect of case law are you looking at?
    Alice Holt Forest situated some 4 miles south of Farnham forms the most northerly gateway to the South Downs National Park.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

641Posts Today

5,661Users online

Martin's Twitter