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
Yadnad
Posts: 2,856 Member
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?
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
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
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.
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.
thanks for the info though, everyday is a school day
The deiays are nothing to do with the volume though. They’re to do with HMCTS incompetence in handling the volume.
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.
.
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.
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:
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.
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.
@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.
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.