Tribunal, Statement of Reasons

Anonymous26

Hi! You've all been so helpful with my PIP journey, I had my tribunal in December and was refused with zero points so I started a new claim and tried to gear it more towards PIP and the descriptors. I have a bad habit of downplaying how much I struggle, I feel too ashamed and embarrassed to admit things and I mask a lot too as a form of coping which is also exhausting in itself. I mentioned this is my new form as I think I may have been a little inconsistent.

I just got my statement of reasons back from tribunal and I guess I just need to vent? The things they've wrote have really upset me but also made me feel mad. Just to list a few (sorry this may be long!

"The Appellant was inclined to exaggerate the impact of her health conditions for example, suggesting that she routinely suffered overwhelming psychological distress and was wholly reliant on the support of her mother and her partner on a daily basis."

"When the inconsistency of her oral evidence with that of the autism assessment that she required minimal support with her daily living activities and was fairly independent, was pointed out, the appellant suggested that she had understated her limitations in that assessment. It was fundamentally unlikely that the appellant would seek to downplay her limitations to a psychiatrist at a time she was pursuing a diagnosis. The appellant's inclination was to exaggerate her limitations, as the Tribunal found she appeared to have done at the work capability assessment in 2019 and she continued to do to an increasing extent following the refusal of her claim for this benefit"

I absolutely did not exaggerate, of course I downplay my struggles, I was seeking a diagnosis but I couldn't bring myself to admit that I can't cook a simple meal myself etc. because I worried I'd sound stupid and I get in my own head. The fact they bring up my work capability assessment from 2019 also?? Saying I basically must have exaggerated to be awarded in that? How are they even allowed to say that? They weren't there, how could they know that I was "exaggerating", I was awarded ESA by a registered doctor who did the assessment.

"There were a number of occasions that the Tribunal had to repeatedly ask the appellant the same question for her to respond appropriately. In this respect, the Tribunal found the appellant evasive for example, despite repeated questioning, the appellant appeared unwilling to disclose where her partner lived. She gave varying responses to the question of where he lived, from indicating initially that he lived not too far away." "The Tribunal found that the appellant was evasive in explaining where her partner lived as it would then lead to further questions concerning the trips that she had made to visit him which undermined the increasing levels of limitation that she had submitted to the Tribunal." "The appellant was similarly evasive when asked whether she and her partner had been on holiday, initially suggesting that she did not remember before subsequently confirming that they had been to Gran Canaria which she considered familiar to her."

My partner lives in Essex, I always get confused if it's Essex or London, I'm not too good geographically. I avoided answering because it's private to me and I can travel to Essex because it's a familiar journey for me but I felt it'd be used against me... I can make familiar journeys alone although I may be more anxious some days than others, it's unfamiliar journeys I can't do alone. Regarding the holidays I just said I couldn't remember the last one we'd been on off the top of my head, we did go to Gran Canaria but again, my partner was with me and he's been going since a child so he keeps me calm and this is a familiar holiday for us. Again I felt this was being asked to be used against me.

And finally, this one really bothered me.

"Having had her application for the benefit refused the appellant was keen to maximise her income by obtaining PIP. The appellant was inclined to overstate her limitations within their written and their oral evidence in the hope that she would do so. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Appellant's mental health was not limiting her at the time of the decision and found on balance that she was inclined to overstate its impact in her evidence to the Tribunal."

This is an absolutely disgusting claim to make I think. I don't know how they dare insinuate that I'm lying for more money, are they even allowed to say that?? Claiming I had some kind of motive??

I don't know I guess I just needed to vent to you all, thanks if you read this far!