Discussion around loss of PIP points and award following review

System

This discussion was created from comments split from: Pip refused after renewal.

apple85

Sorry poppy, I honestly thought you were a mod

plus I couldn’t really think of another term - gamechanger prehaps?

and yes - treating reviews as new claims is good advice

your comment on losing points on a review that you got on a previous review even if there has been no change happening a lot has me worried

have you got a theory of why that could be (you’ve kind of implied before that you have to put more forward on reviews than ‘no change’ but do you have any other thoughts?)

Squeakypips

Hi Apples

Yes they're nuts. Can't read, deny what you wrote, etc. Maddening!

Can you get your GP on-side?

If you can get a letter saying definite things, like "this person cannot safely walk 20 metres",  "This person needs daily assistance and appliances for dressing/using the loo/   needs a support for washing/adapted tools for cooking" - that sort of thing , plus maybe that the condition has  worsened since the previous assessment, the assessors should be persuaded and I can't see a Tribunal going against it (you'd have thought!).

I spoke to my GP first, and, so that she wouldn't have to read all the requirements and interpretations, I emailed a letter to the GP saying what I wanted her to say, so that she could copy/edit/paste.

WHich she did, free.

I now have lower for daily and higher for mobility - it worked.

I've just heard from a new friend at my stretchy-classes who did that after we worked on the wording, and she got her awards while waiting for the tribunal - which therefore didn't happen. Result!

Good luck!

poppy123456

apple85 said:

Sorry poppy, I honestly thought you were a mod

plus I couldn’t really think of another term - gamechanger prehaps?

and yes - treating reviews as new claims is good advice

your comment on losing points on a review that you got on a previous review even if there has been no change happening a lot has me worried

have you got a theory of why that could be (you’ve kind of implied before that you have to put more forward on reviews than ‘no change’ but do you have any other thoughts?)

No worries. I'm a member, just like yourself. The name "disability game changer" is just a name given after making a certain amount of comments, lots of other members have that too. Some have pioneering or connected.

The scope mods usually have the name Scope in their username.

Two different decision makers can come to 2 different decisions, the same with assessors when giving their opinion in the report. A lot of the time it's down to poorly completely claim packs.

The stats say that 21% of review decisions end up with no award and 9% have their award decreased. 52% maintain their award and 18% have an increase. You can see the stats here. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/personal-independence-payment-statistics-to-january-2023/personal-independence-payment-statistics-april-2013-to-january-2023#review-outcomes

apple85

Firstly nasturtium and Squeakypips - thank you for the advice, I’ve screenshot it in case the worst happens with my own review

i think I know what you mean poppy - by poorly completely claim packs you are referring to the paperwork/forms you need to fill in and send back to the dwp if you are claiming for the first time or the ones you receive for a review

i don’t know how to describe it but there’s a certain ‘language’ that is best used when filling the forms. A way of writing (explaining) things - I hope that makes sense

would you agree with me poppy?

poppy123456

apple85 said:

i don’t know how to describe it but there’s a certain ‘language’ that is best used when filling the forms. A way of writing (explaining) things - I hope that makes sense

would you agree with me poppy?

No. There's no specific wording or language you should use. Just concentrate on that anecdotal evidence, a couple of real world incidents of exactly what happened the last time you attempted each descriptor that applies. With a full written explanation.

BarneyJ

Judging from many posts on here, I'm wondering if part of the problem lies in claimants agreeing that they're able to do a certain activity and then explaining what happens when they actually attempt to do it. It seems like assessors just hear that you can do the activity and ignore the consequences of attempting it.

Personally, I think rather than saying yes I can do this activity, it might be better to say when you attempted to do this activity instead, and then go on to explain what happened as suggested above.

nasturtium

BarneyJ said:

Judging from many posts on here, I'm wondering if part of the problem lies in claimants agreeing that they're able to do a certain activity and then explaining what happens when they actually attempt to do it. It seems like assessors just hear that you can do the activity and ignore the consequences of attempting it.

Personally, I think rather than saying yes I can do this activity, it might be better to say when you attempted to do this activity instead, and then go on to explain what happened as suggested above.

Hello BarneyJ

To qualify for points for PIP you need to explain your inability to do the activity Relaibly (safely, repeatedly. in a timely manor and to an acceptable standard) https://pipinfo.net/issues/reliably

So you might be able to make your self a simple meal but because of OCD (Obsessive-compulsive disorder) you have rituals that you must act out while you are preparing your simple meal and this means you are slow at doing this activity. If it takes you twice as long as long to make a meal compared to a person who does not have OCD then that means you cannot do that activity of Preparing a meal Reliably and you will score points depending on what descriptor applies to you.

I hope that helps

Nasturtium

BarneyJ

Hi Nasturtium,

That actually does help. Answering the questions from that basis rather than whether you can technically do it does make a lot of sense. It shouldn't have to be like this though. You shouldn't have to make sure what you say can be twisted and used against you. Even then, there's no real guarantee they won't just lie anyway.

This came up earlier (I hope linking external articles is ok) which makes for some pretty grim reading. https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/dwp-accused-of-denying-people-their-rights-after-rejecting-90-of-disability-benefit-appeals/