If this is your first visit, check out the community guide. You will have to Join us or Sign in before you can post.
Appeal
debbiedo49
Member Posts: 2,906 Disability Gamechanger
I received a bundle of papers in a brown envelope this morning from dwp containing the paperwork for my pip application and appeal. There’s a letter with it. Is that all it is? I thought I would get a date with it?
💜🏴
I am a fibro warrior !💜♏️
This discussion has been closed.
Replies
Both Fibro zero points if I remember correctly?
I think the tribunal date is told to you about 3 weeks before it happens.
I'm still waiting for my bundle - nearly 6 weeks now! I did ring HMCTS and the said the wait in my area in 44weeks!
I haven't been able to find an organisation to help unfortunately. Looks like I'm going it alone.
Just found this thread.
Did you guys get any points from the MR to work with?
Read the whole thing, but for a Tribunal statement, see 15.
I know how the DWP, ATOS, etc. can get to you! I photocopied some of my assessment report and set it on fire.
1. Hide your anger, and be polite. The Tribunal members are professionals, and they expect you to be.
2. Only use points of law if you're absolutely certain of what they mean/ have legal advice. Remember, one of the members of the Tribunal is a judge. He/she knows the law.
3. Go through each activity and figure out what descriptor you think you should get. Make sure that you check the definitions of the words, too. The DWP defines all kinds of common words to mean very specific things (e.g. What a "simple meal" means). Also keep in mind the 50% rule, and the reliability rule. Both important!
4. For each activity, write down why you should get it. Remember, "I have diabetes and Ebola" isn't what they're looking for. They want to hear how your function is limited: "I need supervision to safely cook a simple meal. I have diabetes, so I have to limit my sugar intake, or have these symptoms. However, because the Ebola has dissolved my brain, my memory is really bad, and I forget that I have diabetes between 1 and 3 times an hour. I need my partner to supervise me, and keep track of how much sugar I'm putting into my meal.
5. Link it to your further evidence. A letter from your diabetes nurse confirming that you have diabetes is a bit useful, but if she then describes how often you get high blood sugar, what the symptoms are, and why it's dangerous, that's much better.
6. If the assessor / Case Manager has used a particular piece of "evidence" to deny you points, try to prove them wrong
7. If your assessment report and decision are *really* bad, summarise the major reasons why, and prove them w/ your further evidence/forms. Ask the Tribunal to set aside the report and the Decision because they're unfit. Don't list every tiny mistake in the report, and don't point out spelling errors. The Tribunal members apparently don't get paid for the time they spend reading, so keep your statement to the most important points. It's much better to object to *facts* that are wrong, than to *opinions*:
Fact: "The assessor said that I wash my elephant every Saturday in the back garden, so I can clearly wash and bathe myself. In fact, Hunk is a mammoth (see letter from vet) and doesn't need to be washed".
Opinion: "The claimant looked well-rested and well-nourished, so she can clearly prepare and cook a meal and take nourishment by herself." What can you say to this? "I'm a zombie, so much of my body has rotted and fallen off, and zombies don't sleep?" Opinions are subjective, so arguing about them isn't worth it unless you have objective proof.
Can't think of anything else ATM...
@whistles they stuck with 0 points at MR on mine.
My whole decision has been based on opinion. My bundle arrived this morning - the DWP did contact my GP. He was honest so put that he 'did not know' how my daily life is affected but did describe the individual problems I have (not being able to bare weight on left wrist for example).
Not once has DWP referred to my GPs evidence or mental health assessment report. They used my f2f assessment for everything. I can drive therefore I can bathe etc. I look well nourished therefore I can cook etc.
I struggled with a couple of exercises at the F2F (which I noted was on a good day!) The assessor wrote that I didn't have any trouble with anything.
Fibromyalgia is so hard to prove. I certainly feel the DWP think I'm making the whole thing up.
Senior online community officer
MRs rarely change their decision unfortunately, ignoring your evidence is par for the course, and basing everything on stupid opinions happens all the time.
Appealing to a Tribunal, if you feel you can, is the next step. Claimants are winning 69% of them.
*Hugs*
It's so hard to prove a disability that doesn't show on any tests!
He retired last month. I saw a new one who was horrible!
The delay until you get a hearing date and time is on average around 16 weeks but varies by area so could be as little as 11 or more than 52. Easiest way to check is to ring HMCTS and ask.
Literally nothing happens between now and the hearing date being notified so this is your opportunity to check your availability for the next 3 months and update HMCTS. It’s also your opportunity to talk through the appeal papers either your rep; identify gaps in the evidence and plot how they can be filled. Whilst the timing is not ideal you don’t get this specific gap, between receipt of papers and a hearing date, ever again, so this is your chance to get your ducks in a row so to speak.
As you have a WRO/WRA/rep I suggest you seek all your advice from this point forwards from them as that’s what we’re for. However, cards need to be on the table and the fact is that if your main diagnosis is fibromyalgia then you need to be prepared for the fact that a huge proportion of the medical profession do not see it as a condition in itself. It’s seen simply a set of symptoms given a name when no other explanation is available. Same with CFS/ME and IBS. You may be fighting an uphill battle. The lack of acceptance of it as a discrete condition leads many to infer that therefore it is fictional. The medical professional is hard to predict but will likely have a similar view.
Firstly,
unfortunately the first WRO I saw was basically saying folks with mental health issues won’t get pip so I’m wasting my time. I was told otherwise by my mental health rep who suported me in my decision to ask for a different WRO. I actually felt she must be on commission from atos! (joke!)
Secondly my conditions at the start of this process were mental health issues and chronic pain issues. The fibro was diagnosed during the process so all the symptoms came under chronic pain and how both these conditions affect me day to day.
Thirdly, it would seem I have no time to prepare for a meeting or for my rep to familiarise themselves with my issues or for me to ascertain their capabilities to represent me. My mental health rep wanted to meet up with all of us to get prepared for the meeting and plan for the best outcome. This way it feels completely messy and unprofessional.
Fourthly, I don’t feel I can do this right now so can I ask for a new date due to bereavement please?
I think your mental health rep. has the right idea. A meeting with you, the, and a WRO `sounds a very good idea.
Up up to you to contact your representative and ask them to contact HMCTS and request a postponement ASAP. Key is to do it in writing with as much detail as possible e.g. suggesting that the combination of mental ill health; recent bereavement etc. would make the tribunal difficult and possibly harmful. Support of your MH worker will be crucial there. A two line or two paragraph letter won’t cut it. Up to you to contact your rep. and/or HMCTS though.
I think the welfare rights and cab services are overwhelmed with clients needing help now. Its showing in their piece meal representation in my view anyway. I will chase up getting an adjournment.
I think its fair to say a family bereavement is a valid reason. Thanks for your condolences and advice. Just what I needed.
I had a DLA review years ago but due to the fact that I was in hospital (life & death situation) for many months, and not being able to hold a pen never mind write with it, the DWP in their wisdom put me down as a 'failure to supply evidence/information within 30 days' and stopped (closed down) my ongoing HRM & HRC DLA award. Seems that even if being in a HDU bed the DWP consider it remiss of me for not filling out the form in good time. It took me a further seven years to get the DLA reinstated with those 7 years of money lost forever.
There have been many high profile prosecutions of claimants - mainly DLA - thinking that they can just get on with their life and work.
d. Cannot engage with other people due to such engagement causing either –
(i) overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant; or
(ii) the claimant to exhibit behaviour which would result in a substantial risk of harm to the claimant or another person,
and
a further 6 points for:
d. Cannot make any budgeting decisions at all
With the voluntary work I do both as a Town Councillor and Chair of Board of Directors and Vice Chair Board of School Governors responsible for finance, I doubt that the DWP would have allowed me to keep those 14 points when I told them what my voluntary work was.
PIP is no different to DLA - if you are awarded either for a reason and the DWP believe that the work you do contradicts what you have claimed for you could be prosecuted for fraud.
The next question will obviously be - should you tell the DWP that you have started to work which we all know will result in a re-assessment.
Or, should you only notify the DWP if you think that there are any changes to the descriptors that you were awarded?
If the latter, then you do run the risk if someone decides to inform the DWP that you are now working and you haven't, of being investigated with the suspension of your PIP in the interim.
No need to tell unless it’s obvious there would be an impact on specific descriptors.
I am now wondering after what Mike has said have I shot myself in the foot with giving more information than was needed. Maybe, just maybe that is the reason that I have had so many failures in getting PIP. I certainly hope I am wrong in my thinking as it should make no difference to the results.
I’d appreciate a lowering of the tone. This is a simple matter of professional conduct. It would be wholly inappropriate for me to commrnt on specific advice from another WRO. They could rightly complain and it could rightly be perceived to be a misconduct issue as it could impact the reputation of my employer. It’s an unsustainable position and my position on it is one I am very clear on and won’t be moved on.
I advise many people on here to go get face to face advice as a lay forum is not the place for often complex or nuanced advice. However, where you already have advice then you get your advice off them. If you don’t agree with their advice then you take that up with them or their organisation. You’ve asked why they gave their advice and they have given an explanation. You either accept that or not. If you don’t then you have multiple choices but the least best of those is an online forum.
I got a bit frustrated here as my WRO shut me down completely on asking for the above and yet on here it’s recommended. So it’s very confusing. Of course I have to take WRO advice. I don’t think it’s right that I’m being shut down on here either. It’s a forum we are all equals.
All benefit claimants are being paid benefits on the understanding that you notify any relevant changes of circumstances. Not everything is relevant. Equally it also depends on what you know about what you ought to declare.
As for that story, I’m afraid it’s just a fine example of what happens. There’s no secret source but it does have plenty to do with uncritical thinking and not knowing the system. Let’s look at just a few of the things we’re not being told.
1) So, all HB overpayments are recoverable unless there was an official error whereas ESA requires a misrepresentation or a failure to disclose. If she’s in receipt of means-tested ESA, which triggers full HB, then she only needed to tell ESA of any relevant change as HB will follow their lead in decision making. I would guess that makes this is a failure to disclosure case. In these cases a WRO would first query what information the claimant had about the information they should disclose. Most popular is the INF 4 form, which DWP swear every claimant gets but they don’t. That’s a counter argument in itself but additional to that one has the argument about what the INF 4 says. Numerous tribunals get won because DWP can’t show the actual INF 4 so they put a sample into evidence, if they can be bothered. If they fail to do anything they get battered. If they put a sample in then they’re struggling but more often than not the things the leaflet tells you to disclose turn out to not be the thing the claimant is alleged to have failed to disclose.
DWP can therefore argue that it’s recoverable cos you failed to disclose; argue that you knew that cos all claimants do cos they get an INF 4 and ... it it might turn out the INF 4 doesn’t actually tell them to declare gifts at all and they can’t actually prove you had it.
2) The other argument here is that you can hold what’s called a “mistaken belief, reasonably held” e.g. you could believe completely wrongly that you don’t need to declare a gift but the reason you came to that conclusion could be entirely reasonable once the full circumstances are known.
3) Solicitors who defend in these cases tend to not be social security specialists and, if a WRO is not involved, they tend not to encourage the client to get one. The advice tends to be that you’re bang to rights; put in an explanation but expect to get done for it. Often people are not even told that separate to any prosecution they could appeal to a tribunal and win as there’s a different burden of proof. There’s no order for which gets heard 1st but if you can appeal and win on recoverability it can be raised as part of the defence to the prosecution.
From a WR perspective we would always insist a client accused of fraud gets a solicitor but we’d also run what we do alongside that. People need both.
4) Why did this person get prosecuted? I’m sure we’d all like to believe it’s simply cos DWP prosecute all fraud (they don’t) or the amount of money (there’s a minimum below which they don’t usually prosecute but no amount above which they always will) or perhaps she was simply guilty? I suspect it’s far more complex than that. For starters, why her?
DWP are now wholly politicised (look at the disconnect between what they believe and say about UC and PC compared to the actuality. They tend to prosecute people who will never elicit public sympathy but pander to stereotypes. Most benefit fraud is either nothing of the sort or is organised. Mysteriously we see less of those headlines because we can’t “other” people who are already othered.
In summary this is a classic example of where someone may never have been informed what to declare; may have had a decent justification for any alleged failure and they were targeted precisely because it would make DWP look good and they didn’t access advice until the accusation was made. If you read other such stories the pattern is near identical. If you find a fraud case in the paints where the person had a WRO at any stage do let us know.
What is relevant is decided by the law and the case law. It has long been clear. I posted in detail on another thread that it’s very simple. Would a reasonable person conclude that the change in question would be likely to result in a change in entitlement? Starting work in itself would lead to that conclusion for means-tested benefits but would not for disability benefits. In the latter instance advice would always be needed. That’s not advice from a forum. It really is that simple.
Simplistic advice to always disclose without first getting advice is dangerous. A fine example would be for Housing Benefit. In the current climate, notifying a change could lead to a suspension of up to 3 months because of staff shortages. So, you notify; get your benefit suspended; fall into rent arrears; get a notice of possession from your private landlord; lose your home and then find that your notified change would have resulted in no change to your HB. That’s the sort of thing advice workers see regularly.
It’s also true to say that there’s no conflicting advice here. Most competent advice services should know the law and case law and advise accordingly. What you’re talking about is conflicting advice from lay people on forums.
Elsewhere @markyboy says that “in most cases lay people” know more than advisers. I’ll address that somewhat misguided comment on that thread but this one is a lovely example of why that’s not the case.
I hope we don’t get into a contest over who has what experience but fir what it’s worth I’m happy to say that much of advice work has taken place in an NHS or education context and they’re areas in which I also have extensive and ongoing knowledge.
As regards the news story I’m afraid the amount of money is misleading. The only issue is whether the person knew the fact and could have been expected to disclose in all the circumstances i.e. whether they had a mistaken belief reasonably held. Advice to not disclose isn’t going to vary with the amount unless.
I absolutely stand by my statements regarding news stories. Quoting the Tory press is especially poor. The stories are transparently biased and posted fir political gain. Disproving them is not difficult but it doesn’t usually come from other mainstream news sources. It comes in part from WR knowledge; in part from the huge number of fact checking services out there and from existing research and news.
Why for example would anyone accept an individual fraud story when
- DWP themselves state that most fraud is organised not individual.
- the claimant had clearly never received advice up to the prosecution.
- they have never got more than 66% of decision correct first time in their entire history going back to 1948.
- their accounts have been qualified as unreliable for the last 19 consecutive years.
There is no one magical source. There is just critical thinking, research and reflection.
There is no no “avoidance of doubt” here. That’s nonsense. The article which picks apart a Guarian article may be completely different to that which destroys a Daily Telegraph lie. There are no definitive sources. No white list. No absolutely reliable source. You can ask the same question a million ways. There’s only that one answer. Anyone who is daft enough to believe there is one source which gets it 100% correct all the time is deluded. Anyone who believes such versions ever appear in the mainstream press, equally so. Many of the fraud stories which appear in mainstream media are picked apart by colleagues on Rightsnet but there is no way even they are 100% correct either.
I’ll respond to your last para. with a précis of what I intend to respond on the other thread.
Good professionals always listen but in 32 years I have never met a lay person with more knowledge than an actual adviser. Plenty who have learnt lots. Plenty who absolutely can handle stuff for themselves, which I would actively encourage, but more? Never.
“Knowing best”. Oh dear.
Let’s turn that around. There is an amongst lay people an attitude that first hand experience is everything and is exclusive to them. That advisers and claimants are two mutually exclusive groups. It is by and large deluded and arrogant. Most advisers were originally claimants and when we talk in places like this about people working and claiming benefits we conveniently forget that amongst that group of people who work and claim benefits are advisers themseives. Few of us earn >£25,000 pa and most of us have first hand experience of CB, Tax Credits and disability benefits if not substantially more. Recently debt advice jobs have been advertised at below minimum wage!
I don’t see who funds me as being relevant to this discussion.
A claimant has their own experience. It is valid but, it’s just that. Their own experience. Many claimants will have been through multiple claims and appeals. That gives them more experience but it doesn’t make them experts. It makes them experienced. That is very different. A claimant who wins every appeal will believe they’ve unlocked some magical key to success just as a claimant who loses every appeal will believe everything is loaded against them. Neither are necessarily true. In just the same way, advisers who claim 100% success rates are generally talking rubbish and cherry picking cases.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/how-citizens-advice-works/job-and-voluntary-opportunities/job-opportunities-in-citizens-advice-bureaux/welfare-benefits-caseworker27/
Ever thought that your research skills are solely directed towards what ought to be rather than what is?
https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/jobs/caseworker10
I presume they’ve also told you Universal Credit helps people into work and benefits sanctions work?
I do not for one second believe you’d be more convinced of anything were I to post some prescriptive set of links. The fact is I’ve already set out in huge detail why, for example, all was clearly not as it seemed on your fraud story but that wasn’t good enough.
I’ve already laid out the position. You read an article. You think for yourself. You do some research. It leads where it leads. It rarely leads to the same place. There is no list.