PIP, DLA and AA
If this is your first visit, check out the community guide. You will have to Join us or Sign in before you can post.

Tribunal wins for PIP

YadnadYadnad Posts: 2,856 Member
edited May 2018 in PIP, DLA and AA
Have I got this right? I heard on the news today that PIP appeal wins has reached 75%!!!

If this is right I cannot see this government allowing this figure to creep up to this extent without changing something in the PIP system to make it that much harder to claim and be awarded.

If this figure is right it is embarrassing for the DWP and the government to sit there and do nothing to reduce it.

The supposed idea of PIP was to reduce the then DLA budget by 20%. If you add the MOJ (tribunal) costs to the ever increasing PIP budget where is the saving?

Replies

  • lindadeniselindadenise Member Posts: 302 Pioneering
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,626 Disability Gamechanger
    I can see no evidence or news item suggesting it’s risen above 69%. Source? It’s also a case of be careful what you wish for. Government has it in for the judiciary and wants them lower paid; on fixed term contracts and toeing the line. 1930s anyone? Most likely outcome of any further hike in appeal success rates would be reform of the trubunal system so as to reduce appeal rights rather than reform of PIP itself.
  • lillybellelillybelle Member Posts: 469 Pioneering
    The government are turning more people down over pip because they know and want claimants to just give up trying
    however the majority of the people who don’t give up win their appeal.
    so the government are saving money on every person who gives up the fight

  • lindadeniselindadenise Member Posts: 302 Pioneering
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,626 Disability Gamechanger
    I doubt any money is saved when PIP is costing around 118% of what DLA cost. 
  • susan48susan48 Member Posts: 2,229 Disability Gamechanger
    I’d have thought I would cost more to pay for tribunals etc. with the amount of appeals happening 
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,626 Disability Gamechanger

    susan48 said:
    I’d have thought I would cost more to pay for tribunals etc. with the amount of appeals happening 

    In comparison to the contracts for private providers to do assessments, nothing like. Venues are pre-booked/leased and many judges are salaried so the only additional costs will be medical professionals; fee paid judges and disability qualified tribunal members. The current backlog is testament to the fact there aren't enough of them.
  • YadnadYadnad Posts: 2,856 Member
    I can see no evidence or news item suggesting it’s risen above 69%. Source? It’s also a case of be careful what you wish for. Government has it in for the judiciary and wants them lower paid; on fixed term contracts and toeing the line. 1930s anyone? Most likely outcome of any further hike in appeal success rates would be reform of the trubunal system so as to reduce appeal rights rather than reform of PIP itself.

    It was just something that flashed up on I believe the Victoria Derbyshire programme.

    I totally agree I too cannot see the government continuing to put up with such a high level of success at a Tribunal. I believe we are on course for Tribunals to only carry out 'paper' appeals alongside telephone hearings. The government are intent on closing down the avenue where a Tribunal is a face to face hearing.
    Much more reliance will be placed on quality and professional submissions that the claimants will be expected to prepare without professional help.

    Thankfully I decided a few weeks ago to get off that train and do without PIP. 
  • susan48susan48 Member Posts: 2,229 Disability Gamechanger

    susan48 said:
    I’d have thought I would cost more to pay for tribunals etc. with the amount of appeals happening 

    In comparison to the contracts for private providers to do assessments, nothing like. Venues are pre-booked/leased and many judges are salaried so the only additional costs will be medical professionals; fee paid judges and disability qualified tribunal members. The current backlog is testament to the fact there aren't enough of them.

    The backlog to me says the system doesn’t work in the first place.
    thanks for the info though, everyday is a school day  :)
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,626 Disability Gamechanger
    There have always been lots of appeals going back to their introduction and most have won. It’s a fail safe. It doesn’t in itself mean the whole process isn’t working. Nothing is 100% accurate.

    The deiays are nothing to do with the volume though. They’re to do with HMCTS incompetence in handling the volume.
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,626 Disability Gamechanger
    Aha. @Yadnad I have found what you were referencing. It's a Wales only thing and can be read at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-44157953.
  • YadnadYadnad Posts: 2,856 Member
    edited May 2018
    Aha. @Yadnad I have found what you were referencing. It's a Wales only thing and can be read at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-44157953.

    Thanks Mike. So it was in Wales that in operating the PIP system, the DWP are losing 75% of appeals. I wonder why there is so much difference to the rest of the UK?
    Anyhow at least I was not imagining it.

    If the rest of the UK move up to that level something has to be done. If it was the CPS that was 'losing' that many appeal cases brought by convicted criminals against sentence/conviction some very serious questions would need answering. 
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,626 Disability Gamechanger
    6% difference. Probably not statistically significant as a difference. Clearly statistically significant in absolute terms.
  • lisabrazil80lisabrazil80 Member Posts: 94 Connected
    Will I win my pip appeal back for my metal heath eny one can shed some life on it pls if u all text been tho this
  • Weeme56Weeme56 Member Posts: 36 Courageous
    I wish we were one of those lucky 75%! Hubbys appeal was yesterday. He had got Zero points after assmnt nov 2017- despite being on DLA for best part of 20 yrs at high care middle mobility. He got 1 point at appeal becaus  he uses dosette box & need supervisoon & promting to take meds! I am SO ANGRY not only with panel but lawyer who I feel was so confident we would get mobility part under the new rules the gov announced for MH clients last year, and that hubby was a basket case o stammering & emotional as well as wlaking with stick etc, but he did not even argue it! The panel were over interested in why hubby did not use disability assisstancee when we went to Barcelona for my 60th B day in Dec 2016 for 2 days! They only knew about that cos it was mention in letter from his psych to our GP - as he does after each appointment!  Also, how could he claim carers allowance & give 35 hours of care if he was so disabled? Caring includes watching over & being able to summon help if needed - not just cooking, washing, shopping etc! There is case law on this & I am ****** off lawyer never raised it. Do they not do that for PIP Tribunals now? you get a disabled lay meber on panel yet they are able to claim DLA?PIP AND get work on these panels & yer a man cannot have a weekend away with his wife? My Ex Welfare rights officer brother spotted that right away as soon as I told him. he sais he would have said that but in a light but pointed way! Maybe we will be able to take it to Upper Tribunal if once we see full report we feel they did not give adequate reason for decision or have not applied case law..which I am sure they have not.  I read there is no definition of “care” being provided in order to qualify for Carers Allowance and it includes companionship and supervision which is easy to satisfy when someone lives with a partner.  See paragraph1.200 Social Security Legislation 2015/15 Volume 1.” 
     . 
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,626 Disability Gamechanger
    I think the word “lawyer” is ringing alarm bells for me. Do you mean practising solicitor or something else? 

    The holiday question is absolutely legitimate as it covers a number of functions  and activities and when the tribunal have limited time to get to grips with your case that’s hugely valuable. No-one is saying he shouldn’t go on holiday. They are trying to square the Iack of assistance in that scenario with any stated daily living or mobility needs. 

    The carer question always comes up and you should have been prepared for that by your representative. However, is not true at all to say there’s no definition of care as it has to be both regular and substantial and companionship would absolutely not fit the definition. 

    Finally, you have been completely misadvised about the DQM (disability qualified member). They are a person with experience of disability and they are not necessarily disabled themselves. Indeed they could be a carer. 

    Either way you now need to request a statement of reasons and record of proceedings and go from there.
  • Weeme56Weeme56 Member Posts: 36 Courageous
    He is a lawyer. From local Welfare rights Project, the disabled member had walking sticks so I assume he had a disiability that effects his mobility. As for the carer thing..that was won in case law already. a carer can be someone who is able, assist, to alert or call for help & watch over, prompt verbally, support etc etc even if they do not physically do things. A mum of autistic child fought & won on these grounds.As did a woman caring for parents.The Tribuanl ruled you cannot have both papragraph in the criteria..it is either Sustained & Regular or up to 35 hours. folk who live together do so formore than 35 hours - there was no upper limit
  • YadnadYadnad Posts: 2,856 Member
    edited August 2018
    Weeme56 said:
    He is a lawyer. From local Welfare rights Project, the disabled member had walking sticks so I assume he had a disiability that effects his mobility. As for the carer thing..that was won in case law already. a carer can be someone who is able, assist, to alert or call for help & watch over, prompt verbally, support etc etc even if they do not physically do things. A mum of autistic child fought & won on these grounds.As did a woman caring for parents.The Tribuanl ruled you cannot have both papragraph in the criteria..it is either Sustained & Regular or up to 35 hours. folk who live together do so formore than 35 hours - there was no upper limit
    Carers Allowance

    Maybe I am wrong but the main condition you have to fulfil is that the care given must be for 35 hours or more every week.
    There is no either/or.

    Definition of care

    The 35 hours can include:

    • time spent physically helping the person
    • time you spend ‘keeping an eye’ on the person, eg preventing them coming to harm by walking out of the house
    • time spent doing practical tasks for them, eg cooking
    • time taken doing practical tasks, even if you don’t do them in the presence of the person you are looking after, may also count (for instance, if you look after someone who visits you regularly for the care they need, time spent preparing for the visit or cleaning up afterwards should count)

  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,626 Disability Gamechanger
    Yes, but none of the decision you purport to quote counted companionship as part of the role of a carer and you have misquoted the remainder. It is for at least 35 hours per week and it is not “sustained” it is “substantially”. 
  • Weeme56Weeme56 Member Posts: 36 Courageous
    Okay so I did not use the right word. why are you  disputing this? I said it has already been brough up & won in Case Law. The Tribunal Ruled DWP Rules could not use BOTH descriptors. Look it up I posted the link.
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,626 Disability Gamechanger
    This is CA. There are no descriptors. I’m disputing it because whatever it is you think you’re saying it’s not clear at all and using the wrong terms that you’ve half picked up from someone else isn’t aiding that much. No link has been posted in this thread (although feel free to do so as we might know what it is you’re getting at then) and as one of the people whose cases established the case law which helped shape the very interpretation of the legislation you think you’re talking about I am 100% confident in saying that none of what you’re posting is making any sense to me or others so far.
  • Weeme56Weeme56 Member Posts: 36 Courageous
    sorry you have such a hostile response to lay people! Here is the link I thoughr I had included. http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=270
  • YadnadYadnad Posts: 2,856 Member
    Weeme56 said:
    sorry you have such a hostile response to lay people! Here is the link I thoughr I had included. http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=270
    On what basis, if any, have either of you claimed  Carers Allowance? And if so is it in payment?
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,626 Disability Gamechanger
    Weeme56 said:
    sorry you have such a hostile response to lay people! Here is the link I thoughr I had included. http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=270
    I’m generally hostile to factual inaccuracy rather than individuals. The decision you have cited has no bearing on your apparent argument whatsoever as it’s an IS decision and not a CA one. The description of care for CA is well defined and almost exactly as described by @Yadnad above, with the one exception that there must be proximity i.e. a lot of those activities must require to be performed in the presence of the disabled person else they don’t count as personal care. 

    All the IS decision said was that the definition of care for IS was wider. As you’re not claiming IS it’s wholly irrelevant. 
  • Weeme56Weeme56 Member Posts: 36 Courageous
    Okay, My point about the cares things is really that the purpose of the assessment is to identify what the client can or cannot do for himself, not another person, and given that my hubby suffers from PTSD & related depression etc, his claim for PIP is largely based on his need for prompting and encouragement, not a physical inability to do things; the fact that I frequently and repeatedly prompts and encourage (nag) him to do things should in fact support the claim and a DM should only make the decision according to the regs and what is recorded from the assessment. The DWP Definitition of Care does not specify any particular 'must do's'.. what you posted is from Cares advice and is only a 'For instance' Here are the  DM guides.  :  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721807/dmgch60.pdf 
  • YadnadYadnad Posts: 2,856 Member
    I have read the transcript that you referred to earlier and can only but agree with what Mike says. It is clearly an Income Support situation and bears absolutely no part of PIP.

    I would also point out in Mike's defence is that he is a well known and respected senior Welfare Rights Officer and above all if he says what it is you can bet your bottom dollar that he is right.
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,626 Disability Gamechanger
    Weeme56 said:
    Okay, My point about the cares things is really that the purpose of the assessment is to identify what the client can or cannot do for himself, not another person, and given that my hubby suffers from PTSD & related depression etc, his claim for PIP is largely based on his need for prompting and encouragement, not a physical inability to do things; the fact that I frequently and repeatedly prompts and encourage (nag) him to do things should in fact support the claim and a DM should only make the decision according to the regs and what is recorded from the assessment. The DWP Definitition of Care does not specify any particular 'must do's'.. what you posted is from Cares advice and is only a 'For instance' Here are the  DM guides.  :  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721807/dmgch60.pdf 
    Thanks @yadnad but I’m not in need of a defence team :)

    @Weeme56 you are contradicting yourself here. On the one hand asserting DMs should only make decisions based on the regulations and then posting a link to... their guidance! Thus demonstrating that they in fact have more than one thing to take account of. So, back to basics. 

    A DM weighs all the evidence not just the bits you like or want them to take account of and should make a decision based on the law, guidance and case law. A tribunal does the same. One does it better than the other as in practice DMs only act based on DM guidance and accompanying circulars. It is absolutely wrong to say a decision should only be made according to the regs and the assessment. Way off beam in fact. 

    You are correct in assuming that questions should be directed at establishing the functional capability of the claimant but it is entirely consistent with that any evidence suggesting a disabled person is also a carer should be examined. Indeed there has recently been very clear case law on exactly how that is to be done. 

    Your attempts to suggest the DWP have somehow defined care in a way which means it doesn’t interfere with or have any relevance to a PIP claim are also way off course. There is no such definition and no such intent. The links you have posted so far have been to case law which was to do with IS not PIP or CA and DWP guidance, which is just that: guidance. It has to be taken account of and no more than that. It is regularly challenged successfully for being an inaccurate representation of both the law and the case law. Nothing in it binds a decision maker or a tribunal. 

    What you’ve posted so far to my mind suggests that you entered the tribunal room wholly unaware that your husband being a carer was going to be an obvious line of questioning. That’s an issue between you and your representative. It also looks like you’ve not got to grips with what the tribunal were getting at, which I think is pretty simple and could be summarised as follows: if he can provide 35 hours of care for another person over 7 days involving, as you say, watching over and intervening when necessary, then that is clearly suggestive of a person who can act unprompted. Why then would he qualify for PIP on the basis that he actually needs prompting? On the face of it only 1 of those 2 things can be true unless there is some key detail you have yet to post. 


  • YadnadYadnad Posts: 2,856 Member
    edited September 2018
    I do wonder if this is a case of two 'disabled' individuals claiming that they care for each other that may have been prompted in the past as a way of 'maximising' their benefit entitlement and not realising that one may in fact contradict something else?

    Carers Allowance is a self certified claim that once the claimant and the person being cared for have signed it no further questions or examination of the claim will be made by the DWP.
    However the DWP have realised that it could be a contradiction should their 'disability' and the impact it causes be set down for careful scrutiny as at a Tribunal hearing and as such they are fully entitled to an explanation or I should say the Tribunal is.

  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,626 Disability Gamechanger
    Any PIP tribunal where CA is in payment will raise the issue.
Sign in or join us to comment.