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.

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.

MW123

@M1CK

I am really sorry the tribunal outcome has left you feeling like this.  When you’ve put so much into explaining your difficulties, it’s incredibly disheartening to read a decision that doesn’t seem to reflect your day to day reality.

Just to pick up the legal side of what you’ve described, the test for “overwhelming psychological distress” is set very high in case law.  Tribunals often accept that someone has anxiety or panic attacks but still decide it doesn’t meet that threshold for the majority of the time.  That part is a factual finding, and the Upper Tribunal will not revisit it simply because you disagree with the conclusion.

Where an Upper Tribunal appeal can be possible is if the First tier Tribunal made an error of law.  That means something went wrong in the legal process, not just that the panel reached a conclusion you don’t agree with.

An error of law can include misapplying the legal test, failing to explain properly why your oral evidence was said to be inconsistent, ignoring or not addressing important medical evidence, or giving reasons that do not actually support the findings.  The tribunal does not have to agree with your evidence, but it does have to show that it considered it and explain clearly how it reached its decision.

A disagreement with how they weighed the evidence is not enough on its own, but if the Statement of Reasons does not clearly show how they reached their view, that can be an arguable point of law.

Just to be clear, the Upper Tribunal can refuse permission to appeal before it ever reaches a full hearing.  They look first at whether there is an arguable error of law. If they decide there is not one, they can reject the application at the permission stage.

Once you receive the Statement of Reasons, it should become clearer whether there is anything challengeable.  It might be worth getting some proper legal advice at that stage, so someone can look at the reasoning with a trained eye and tell you whether there is a realistic argument to take forward.

Emilee

This is something that comes up a lot, as of course what constitutes 'anxiety' is subjective, but just experiencing anxiety is not enough to meet this discriptor.

It isn't a question of opinion and the explanations by Overlyanxious, Chiarieds and MW123 are correct.

The test for PIP under the planning and following journeys activity is not whether someone experiences anxiety or distress in general, but whether they are unable to undertake a journey reliably, on the majority of days, without prompting or support because of overwhelming psychological distress.

"Overwhelming” in this context has a legal meaning focused on functional impact, i.e., whether the distress actually prevents the person from beginning or completing the journey without another person’s help, rather than how intense it subjectively feels.

Wo while ongoing anxiety or pain is clearly relevant background, it will not score under this descriptor unless it meets that specific functional threshold, and a tribunal’s role is to apply that legal test to the evidence before it, meaning that disagreement with how they weighed the evidence is not, by itself, grounds for appeal unless there is an identifiable error of law in how the criteria were applied.