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.

Questions before going into a Mandatory PIP reconsideration

MrDave

Hi folks,

Thanks for this great forum, I have some questions, as I am considering to request a mandatory pip reconsideration.

Quick reference to current points awarded- a breakdown of the claimant:
11 points on Daily Living
1. Preparing food | 2
2. Taking nutrition | 0
3. Managing therapy or monitoring a health condition | 1
4. Washing and bathing | 2
5. Managing toilet needs or incontinence | 0
6. Dressing and undressing | 2
7. Communicating verbally | 0
8. Reading and understanding signs, symbols and words | 0
9. Engaging with other people face to face | 2
10. Making budgeting decisions | 2
==========================================================================
8 points on Mobility
1. Planning and following journeys | 8
2. Moving around | 0

Risks of Mandatory reconsideration:
- When requesting a mandatory reconsideration, I would like to challenge points awarded for Activity 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 and 10.

Questions regarding a Mandatory reconsideration Strategy:
- If a claimant was to request a mandatory reconsideration, would every single activity be looked upon again? Or just the challenged/disagreed activities by the claimant?

- Since claimant only needs 1 more point awarded for the higher rate, would it be advised to challenge only activities that have no points awarded, or a low reward? (e.g. 2,3,5, and 9)
Or would it better to challenge all descriptors/activities?

- Since claimant has already been awarded 11 points, challenging activity 2, 3, 5, and especially activity 9. Would form no risk to this award, because even a lower consideration would still leave claimant with at least 8 points for the Daily Living part.

- The claimant has strong evidence from GP and Health professionals history, that Activity 9, should have been awarded with describer D, Cannot engage with other people due to such engagement causing either overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant. (Claimant is suffering from PTSD and Acrophobia and Panic Attacks)

- Due to misunderstanding claimant was forced to attend the face-to-face consultation under, high anxiety otherwise would have lost PIP award. (appointment was re-booked, and not requested a home visit in the first rebooking, so booking home assessment was no longer a possibility according to a manager of DWP / Atos) This reason being claimant has been awarded descriptor B for activity 9. Instead of the normal descriptor D for severe anxiety and PTSD.

- Also added on top of this, the Claimant has been awarded descriptor E. Cannot undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant. for Mobility Question 1. So the award of descriptor B with activity 9 (instead of D) makes it inconsistent with the rest of the claimant's PIP claim.

Question: Would it be advisable if activity 9 has strong evidence attached to the appeal, to only challenge the decision made regarding Activity 9? This will mostly depend on the answer given to the first question I assume of course.

=========================================================================
Questions regarding Mobility
Due to medication usage and the claimant not being- daily active in moving around. Distances of 200 meters would be of great challenge of the claimant. Not only was mentioned that the Claimaint has to stop walking after a short distance of less than 200 meters due to this, Claimant cannot do this unassisted either.
Descriptor B would apply here in our view, Can stand and then move more than 50 meters but no more than 200 meters, either aided or unaided.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

poppy123456

Hi,

They would look at the whole award again and not just the bits you challenge, so they do risk losing everything they already have. When writing the MR letter they need to state everything they disagree with and put what they think they should have scored and why.

I'm confused why you're asking about the "moving around" part of the mobility when you haven't mentioned any physical disabilities the claimant has. In the above post you've only mention mental health. A claimant won't score any points in the moving around part if they have mental health. For the mobility part then following and planning a journey would apply.

atlas46

Hi and a warm welcome

Was this your first claim for PIP?

Did you have the assistance of a Welfare Rights Advisor/CAB?

Who are the health professionals, that provide strong evidence, for activity 9 ?

Can you expand on the problem of your first missed assessment?

Have you got a copy of your assessment report?

Best wishes

Atlas46

freckles

I,m still waiting to hear about my M.R. sent it in on the 31st jan rang dwp on monday and spoke to a supervisor he said they were looking into it and should no by the end of this week well its saturday today i told the bloke the assesor did,nt take into account about my ipf if no joy today i will get onto my MP

MrDave

Okay understood, thanks for the clear answer to that poppy, that helps a lot in writing an MR.

@Atlas46,
No this was not the first claim of the claimant. It has been a transferal from DLA to PIP, which has been on-going for more than ten years. due to the long - timeframe claimant has developed physical problems walking for even a short distance in an acceptable time frame and comfort.

Currently, the claimant has no assistance of a Welfare Right Advisor or CAB. Perhaps getting in contact with them would be wise. The claimant has already written a letter stating each activity and where they disagree or agree with the decision of the first decision maker. and why.

The health professionals involved in activity 9, are GP's, events from the past, recent hospital recording of discharge due to the impact of mental health on staff, and the fact that the claimant does not leave the house and can get into a severe state of distress and has this witnessed by relatives who supported this during face-to-face consultation.

The issue with the first appointment is that the claimant needed a home-visit in the first place to assess the possible changes from DLA to PIP. But when the husband of the claimant called, there was asked for a re-schedule of the appointment and not a home-visit. Therefore losing the right of a home-visit after the re-scheduling of the original appointment.

The claimant has a copy of the accessors report indeed.

MrDave

@poppy123456
Thanks for that, the claimant has already written a letter in sketch challenging every activity award that they disagree with or agree with currently, and what they believe to be the correct descriptor and why for this activity.

So that's good to know that it's being done correctly.

Due to the mental health condition being a long-term condition the physical condition of the claimant became more severe. Because of lack of activities and prominent staying of the claimant in a bedroom, walking for any longer than approx. 100 meters. is even of extreme discomfort to the claimant making it impossible to complete within a reasonable standard.

@atlas46
This was not the first claim for PIP, it is actually concerning a transferal from DLA to PIP for the claimant. The claimant was on the middle rate on DLA, but conditions have worsened as this has been an on-going condition for the past ten years.

The claimant has had no help from the CAB or a Welfare Rights Advisor. Just help me and her daughter during the interview.

The strong evidence and medical history of the claimant include recent hospital discharge as forming a threat to professionals and patient being in severe mental distress during hospital recording.

Also includes the medical history of the claimant and information from GP, as the claimant is even unavailable to travel to visit GP practice, mentally. Even dentist appointments are a huge challenge to the claimant as these are delayed until they are impossible to be ignored anymore due to severe pain e.g or falling out teeth.

MrDave

So do you think if I back up the letter with evidence, for each descriptor, where possible, that the changes of being denied my current award are low? I have understood that taking away points is more the exception than the rule with mandatory reconsiderations, and given the evidence I've got there should be a strong case I am certain.
PIP has been awarded until 2024

MrDave

I called CAB yesterday, and they said that only the points I challenge will be reviewed. And I should not mention the descriptors that I do agree with.

Of course they would look over- the entire claim. is this correct information, because it controdicts with what you guys have said?

Matilda

They are supposed to look at the whole award - whether they always do in practice, I don't know. But of course do not draw their attention to the descriptors you agree with.

atlas46

Be in no doubt they can look across all of the claim and not limit, to the ones of your choice.