nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

We want to hear from you: please tell us about your experience of the online community.

PIP Tribunal Tribunal Decision Query

M1CK

The Tribunal Panel have failed to award 4pts for needing assistance for following a journey.

They state: The Tribunal accepted , at times the Applicant suffers from anxiety appear to be and panic attacks however it did not appear to the panel that this was likely to be for the majority of the time or to the extent that the appellant would meet the high standard of overwhelming distress. His oral evidence was not consistent with the medical evidence.

I will be appealing the decision on a point of law as I believe the medical evidence shows I have trouble all of the time, ie: the majority.

Has anyone else had similar judgements made against them.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

OverlyAnxious

Hi,

I feel you may not have quite understood this descriptor. It would not be possible to provide evidence for having 'trouble' all the time, as this descriptor is only about the times that you go out.

If you cannot go out on at least 4 days a week due to Overwhelming Psychological Distress then you fit the 10 points descriptor. If you are going out on 4 or more days each week, and on your own without any aids, then it is very difficult to fit any criteria for this question. There is a big difference between anxiety and Overwhelming Psychological Distress.

Lastly, if you didn't score any points for the walking descriptor, there is nothing to be gained by scoring 4 points for this one.

If you do want to appeal on an Error of Law then I would strongly recommend getting legal advice from a professional in this case.

chiarieds

Hi @M1CK - I agree with @OverlyAnxious - you're querying that you should have received 4 points for this 'Going out' part of PIP which is 'Needs prompting to be able to undertake any journey to avoid overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant.' Therefore only if you had received at least an additional 4 points for the 'Moving around' mobility part which considers being able to also do so 'reliably' (which would also consider pain upon/after movement) would there have been an award for the mobility component of PIP.

As mentioned, the threshold for 'Overwhelming psychological distress' is quite high, tho the Tribunal acknowledged that you suffer from anxiety & panic attacks tho perhaps not the majority of the time.

OverlyAnxious has, as ever, listened, & given appropriate advice. In order to appeal to an Upper Tribunal you would need to seek legal advice to see if in fact there was an 'error in law.' Without this you'll not be able to proceed further. Errors in law can often be found, but, like in your case, even if they are they may not result in an award of PIP or one of its components.

No-one is minimising what you suffer, just trying to help.

chiarieds

Hi @willow1 - I actually hope that whilst @M1CK may read your subjective opinion, he actually takes away the objective opinions given above.

Supporting our members can take various forms, but I believe where benefits are concerned, then where actual facts are given in a clear way, this is of the most help (so hopefully these are not discarded).

If you haven't come across the following, you may find them helpful: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/personal-independence-payment-assessment-guide-for-assessment-providers/pip-assessment-guide-part-2-the-assessment-criteria#mobility-activities

https://pipinfo.net/activities/planning-and-following-journeys

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c5fcb1cc433b000ca90b18/UT1_0224.pdf

see section 6 about 'errors in law.'

Different points of view can be considered interesting, & a member's personal experience can indeed sometimes be helpful, e.g. my personal experience, having known OverlyAnxious for many years, is that he remains objective, due to the knowledge he's gained from reputable sources, when he gives benefits advice.