We want to hear from you: please tell us about your experience of the online community.
markyboy said: In my experience the Dwp take little notice of GP letters they always say the doctor can only write down what you tell him especially in the case of how far you can walk
Username_removed said: Yadnad said: In the December 2014 review of PIP the following was reported:2. The Review saw at first-hand during site visits that the assessment providers have a thorough process for attempting to gather further evidence, making telephone calls and writing to a range of health and social care professionals as advised by claimants.8. Under Disability Living Allowance (DLA), individual claimants tended to gather and submit further evidence themselves. The Review understands the intention under PIP was to shift the onus of responsibility to the assessment provider.Mike, I would agree that the most practical and certain way of getting a decent award is by the claimant providing all of the evidence, but PIP was not geared up for that to happen.DLA was a haphazard system that saw those who could afford to pay for good quality evidence succeed in getting an award whereas those that had little money and thus no means of securing the evidence were at the other end of the scale with no award. Likewise those who were able to secure by way of fees paid for professional support generally had a better outcome.I also appreciate that PIP is all about impact, but some evidence to support those claims does need to be sent in.We seem to have been sleepwalking into this scenario that the claimant is now expected to supply the evidence when it was never to be the case. All of which kind of explains why the review was ineffective.1) They may have a “thorough process” but it’s only ever been intended for use in a limited number of cases e.g. severe mental ill health.2) DWP told the review that was the intent but they were talking nonsense. Let’s not forget they recently told a court about the original intent around the mobility descriptors and the court damningly concluded there was literally no evidence r for the statement. Government in recent years has become very good at perpetuating the idea that if you repeat nonsense often enough it becomes true.3) Whatever the alleged intent the law has always been written in expectation of the party seeking to get a new decision bring the party upon which the burden of proof falls. Start with this as an example.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111532072/regulation/8Equivalent DLA was worded near identically. Thus nothing has changed.
Yadnad said: In the December 2014 review of PIP the following was reported:2. The Review saw at first-hand during site visits that the assessment providers have a thorough process for attempting to gather further evidence, making telephone calls and writing to a range of health and social care professionals as advised by claimants.8. Under Disability Living Allowance (DLA), individual claimants tended to gather and submit further evidence themselves. The Review understands the intention under PIP was to shift the onus of responsibility to the assessment provider.Mike, I would agree that the most practical and certain way of getting a decent award is by the claimant providing all of the evidence, but PIP was not geared up for that to happen.DLA was a haphazard system that saw those who could afford to pay for good quality evidence succeed in getting an award whereas those that had little money and thus no means of securing the evidence were at the other end of the scale with no award. Likewise those who were able to secure by way of fees paid for professional support generally had a better outcome.I also appreciate that PIP is all about impact, but some evidence to support those claims does need to be sent in.We seem to have been sleepwalking into this scenario that the claimant is now expected to supply the evidence when it was never to be the case.
The value must be greater than or equal to 1.
Get more out of your online community by signing in or registering
