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.

appeal winners

Grumpy1954

Any evidence that people who go to appeal or tribunal and win get treated better, next assessment? Just wondering is this is something to expect every 3 years, ie 3 years of award then up to 12 months contesting next assessment or if, once they know you won't give uo, do they behave?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

poppy123456

No, not that i know of anyway. Having an award by the Tribunal will not help your next review.

[Deleted User]

No they won't leave you alone even if your circumstances have not changed they
Will tell lies at the next assessment then it will start all over again

debbiedo49

I got two years on my date after tribunal and its backdated 8 months so its going to start again in about a year I think.

Grumpy1954

Ok, a vicious circle then, 3 yrs on, assessment then 3 -12 month fight on and on irrespective of prognosis or age - that's crazy!

wilko

It's a merrgoround, once it's starts there is no stopping it. Makes you wonder if they Rig it to keep claiming their expenses, after all they don't do the appeals and tribunerals out of the kindness of their hearts it all has ho be paid for.

debbiedo49

I read on here that you can ask for MR for the length of time you get on your award. But in all honesty after 8 months of the system how on earth could I begin to do that, and risk losing it again? So we live in fear. Next time around if it’s appropriate I will know to ask or request a longer award period. However at tribunal you leave the room while they decide and then my WRO went back in for the decision. I can’t see how or when I would get a chance to say anything about my award period. Anyone done this ?

[Deleted User]

No formatter is installed for the format not-found

[Deleted User]

Wonders never cease

whistles

I left them alone in the hope they do the same!
I got awarded for three years, review in two. No way was I going to spend a year in limbo. Health more important.

If anyone is from DLA days, the first ever award was short.

Topkitten

I think the more determined you prove yourself to be the more likely it is you will get better treatment. A lot of the poor treatment appears to be aimed at getting people to give up and stop claiming. I think if you prove yourself to be determined no matter what then they are less likely to try it on so they can spend more time on people who are no so determined.

This is only my opinion though.

TK

Yadnad

Whatever happened with a previous award will have no bearing on the next and subsequent assessments. The assessor does not have the info from past awards - just the current one - unless you send them the info with the claim form.

3 years does seem to be the norm. I had two awards since 2013 both for 3 years - review after 2.
After my third assessment I gave up as at 70 years of age the thought of having to fight the DWP every two years just wasn't for me. My health and wellbeing was more important.

Yes you can ask for a longer period but it is down to the DWP to decide. Giving 3 year awards does help the DWP. First it let's them have more bites of the cherry and secondly after numerous 2 year reviews most people would want to give up.

whistles

Topkitten said:

I think the more determined you prove yourself to be the more likely it is you will get better treatment. A lot of the poor treatment appears to be aimed at getting people to give up and stop claiming. I think if you prove yourself to be determined no matter what then they are less likely to try it on so they can spend more time on people who are no so determined.

This is only my opinion though.

TK

The idea of the benefits shake up is to reduce our money, and reduce what they give out to new claimants.
Fighting them has no bearing because we have members here who have done that four or five times.

Grumpy1954

Whistles, that's basically what I wanted to know, as I'm one of the last batches to get assessed, wondered how the earlier ones went on reassessment.
In 1997 I was told the only way I'd walk properly again was to have 2 plastic knees, but I was too young to be given them as I'd wear them out and need more. Now they say I'm too old - go figure.

whistles

Grumpy1954 said:

Whistles, that's basically what I wanted to know, as I'm one of the last batches to get assessed, wondered how the earlier ones went on reassessment.
In 1997 I was told the only way I'd walk properly again was to have 2 plastic knees, but I was too young to be given them as I'd wear them out and need more. Now they say I'm too old - go figure.

Yes that's sounds great doesn't it. Leave it so long that they now can't do anything.

It will be a different assessor, different dm and possibly the dwp being told they haven't awarded in keeping with the laws (mental health, medication and something else that escapes me

)
What you say will likely be different because it's about how you are effected from now.

debbiedo49

We can only hope that this changes to a fairer system with a fairer govt

Yadnad

debbiedo49 said:

We can only hope that this changes to a fairer system with a fairer govt

Don't hold your breath for that!

Topkitten

@Grumpy1954, replacement joints can cause issues plus they have to do certain work to attach them. Consequently you can only have 2 replacements. They will not do this before a certain age because, if something goes wrong with the first one, you can only have one more. It does seem though that they change the ages at which they can be done from time to time as procedures and treatments improve. I will say though that the age at which they stop bothering to help people is constantly being lowered to reduce overall costs. I do not know what that age is now but I suspect I am beyond it as I have noticed a distinct reduction in support levels over the last year or two.

Having been in A&E in my local hospital and having had to wait in the corridor for 2 hours to get a bed there I found that despite them having 30 odd beds available I was the only case not alcohol related. With so many people being that stupid is it any wonder that we do not get as much support and treatment as we should?

I have recently watched a few of these ambulance related programs and am disgusted at how many people waste ambulance and A&E resources on trifling issues some of which do not need even GP support, let alone ambulance and A&E support. It's pathetic!

TK

Grumpy1954

I quite agree with you on alcohol, self inflicted A&E problems, and the daft ambulance call outs. My wife watches those probgrammes as well, and I recall one woman called and ambulance because she had a lot of shopping and her feet hurt. She was irate when they said they could only check her feet and/or take her to hospital, not drop her and her shopping off at home.
The drain on the emergency services is bad enough as it is, without idiots who should know better!

[Deleted User]

Spot on

Yadnad

lillybelle said:

Things seem to be changing now ( slowly) but it’s a start.
the more cases that the courts get involved with, the better the chances of having the rules changed.
i can’t see how this farce can carry on as it is

Be extremely careful with what you wish for.

The government is totally committed to the original principles of PIP and the savings it has to make. If the government see this benefit going the way DLA did with the courts dictating the conditions and principles which changed the whole idea of DLA, then I do believe they will step in and rectify what the courts of the future may come up with as regards PIP.