How many people have won paper based appeal regarding pip

Webber

How many people have won paper based appeal regarding pip 

Geoark

Hello @Webber and welcome to the community.

The evidence suggests that you are much likely to win an appeal if you appear rather than using a paper appeal. One reason the DWP had a consultation last year to change the system to online digital or paper appeals without the option of appearing in person.

One potential reason for this is that many people do not know or understand the PIP criteria, let alone being able to put a competent paper appeal together. If the paper appeal fails to fill in the gaps the tribunal panel can only judge by what is in front of them, if you appear then they can at least ask for clarification or other questions to help them come to a decision.

If you are genuinely unable to attend before the appeal panel please get advice and help in putting the paper appeal together.

Webber

ThAnku for your reply they ajourned my paperbased hearing as they want oral hearing they have all evidence including drs report I suffer from severve anxiety and deoression and can't leave my house I have already told them that I won't be attending oral hearing my dr also explained that I don't travel this is my second pip as I've already been to one so I no what's it's like but this is a new claim what are my chances of winning with out attentending oral hearing thanku

Geoark

@Webber sorry but besides offering the statistical evidence for winning I am not sure if anyone can tell you how likely you are to succeed. 

Statistically you have a 65% chance of winning at appeal, but this includes both forms of evidence, paper and appearing. I know one advocacy organisation have the following success rates, 90% for those appearing at the tribunal, 50% for those who opt for paper only. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/12/online-benefits-appeals-tribunals-disabled and this was with support from an advocacy group.

That said another member may be able to give better information.

Webber

Ok thanku for advice I no what you are saying but I had oral hearing last year and got no where also this stressed me out so much that is why I opted for paperbased new claim but I do understand what you are saying just just hope they accept my papperbased and accept my wishes thankyou

Geoark

@Webber I do appreciate your frustration and that you find the process stressful.

Please read the whole post first, but you might find it useful to do an online self test, as this may help you, https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/personal-independence-payment-pip/pip-self-test

A lot of the words used have a set definition within the PIP assessment and these can be found at https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Documents/Advice%20(public)/pip-guide-language-of-descriptors-activities.pdf

There is also the question of being able to carry out activities safely. There was an upper tribunal decision which has changed the way this should be assessed. The DWP has interpreted this as doing risk assessments to decide the correct description and points awarded. There is a memo which the DWP sent out to enable decision maker to assess what to award.  This can be seen at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/658567/adm29-17.pdf

hughie1

Username_removed said:

The win rate for paper hearings is between 3 and 5%. At the very least you need to be represented or request a hearing at home or over the phone. You will need to battle for either option but they are available.

Where do you get these figures from? What you're implying is it is virtually impossible to win at paper appeal. I've spoke to the courts and they've said they don't release official statistics on paper appeal success rates. Why are you spreading false information?

hughie1

The rightsnet post you've referenced says between 17-19%. Yes, maybe I spoke to call centre guy, but this one in particular was very intelligent, a good listener and communicator (can't say the same about others I've spoken to.) He also says he doesn't see why there would be a difference since they are going mostly of the papers anyway. I've also read examples of people attending oral hearing and a. They've already made the decision and have no further questions or b. Asked just a few basic questions or just needed clarification on something. I get there's a lower success rate but do you think you've exaggerated how low, maybe? Also this post was regarding pip, are you suggesting esa paper appeals are similarly as low?

hughie1

In summary, you're saying my ESA (2nd year) disallowance paper-based appeal (I got a Time Extension as I'm waiting for my mental health notes to arrive) is probably-definitely a waste of time. That I'd have as much chance of winning a scratch card? No matter how well I present my evidence (I read on another forum that presentation is key) it is just a waste of time, basically. I don't want to attend or wait how long it takes to get appeal, it's being over 2 years since decision.

hughie1

Username_removed said:

With all due respect I haven't said anything about your specific chances of winning at all and nor would I as I have not seen your appeal bundle.

The chances of winning something on a scratch card are pretty good according to everything I have read. However, there is no meaningful comparison to be made. A scratch card involves nothing but chance. A tribunal involves multiple elements of chance but an awful lot of other things.

The role of the tribunal is to weigh the evidence; find facts and then apply the law to those facts. Where evidence is contradictory or not obviously supportive then weighing that evidence is much harder and sometimes impossible if the appellant is not there. An excellent written submission with comprehensive supporting evidence (not necessarily medical evidence) may well win a paper hearing but the reality is that the statistics speak for themselves. At best, assuming I know nothing and am completely wrong, you have a chance of being in the 15% who win. If I'm right then it's as low as I've previously stated.

That doesn't take away from the fact that a percentage do win but it's a low percentage whichever way you dress it up and the reasons for that have already been aired. I fully appreciate why someone with mental health issues may not wish to attend (lots of people with lots of other impairments feel the same) but that doesn't take away from the fact that your best chance of winning will always be with having solid evidence and appearing in person. That has been the case for decades and the question you need to ask yourself is really about how important this is to you. Do you want to gamble with a paper hearing or at the very least give yourself your best chance by appearing in person? Is it something you want to go through again repeatedly or never again? Have you, for example, put anything in about the length of award you ought to have? If not, then how are you going to feel if you win the rate of PIP you have identified as appropriate but only get it for a year?

It's very easy to build these things up so it can come as a shock if, for example, having settled for a paper hearing you find that the panel on the day decide they need to have you there in person anyway. At minimum you need to be prepared for that as an outcome rather than just a win or a loss.  

I'd appreciate if, as I politely requested, you would name the HMCTS region as their approach on the phone is something which needs to be flagged up either as a complaint or via upcoming tribunal user group or stakeholder meetings.

Sorry I did not get back to you sooner. As you know from my other post I attended the hearing in person and it was accepted. I did set it for paper, then got a letter a couple weeks ago with a date set for oral hearing. After what yoy had told me about the low success rate I was now glad they give me a hearing date and that is was not too long for we to wait for it.

Apologies for saying you were wrong for saying there was only a 3-5% success rate. I just believed there was no way for that to be true. And of course I was told over the phone there's hardly a difference between paper and oral. But having read some of the links you posted I realised you were more than likely talking sense. And I was glad you informed of this (though, the tribunal went ahead and changed it to oral hearing without me asking anyway.)

Regarding you wishing for me to name the HMCTS region, I would feel more comfortable if I could PM you this. Is that possible on here? TBH though, weren't it just a call-centre guy I spoked to anyway? Weren't it him giving out this advice (about the paper appeals and oral appeals having virtually the same success rate)? I assumed it was the clerk but it was the call-centre.

melissahicking2019

So you mean to tell me, that just because its a paperbased hearing there is only a 5% success rate. WELL THATS UNFAIR the claimant could be genuinely ill and the evidence suggest this to be the case, But because the courts cant be arsed to do a proper and complete paperbased assessment they will simple fly through a couple at the end of the day and offer a 5% chance of success. even if the claimant was genuinely seriously ill... Great confidence i now have for the TRIBUNAL SERVICE.

melissahicking2019

just goes to show that the truth does not matter in a court of law or a tribunal or for the DWP and CAPITA .no wonder innocent people get thier lives taken from them in our benefits system and the courts.

melissahicking2019

  

twonker

melissahicking2019 said:

just goes to show that the truth does not matter in a court of law or a tribunal or for the DWP and CAPITA .no wonder innocent people get thier lives taken from them in our benefits system and the courts.

It has nothing to do with the truth.
If the written evidence and submission is not strong enough to get a paper based decision then what is the Tribunal to do?
They can't very well talk to the claimant so as to understand the problems better because no one has attended.
Hence it is better for the claimant to give their side of the case to the Tribunal.

twonker

And there are those that are so fearful of having to appear before a panel and knowingly will be quizzed, sometimes to the point of mental abuse that they simply will not attend. They may also have major problems in speaking to a stranger at say the CAB so will not actively seek any support.

These people are more likely to be vulnerable in other ways and may well have a 'cast iron' claim but putting it together and having to defend what they have written is probably beyond their capabilities. These claimants will then fail to gain an award despite what the strength of the case is.