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.

PIP APPEAL

Amarsingh

Hi,
I have submit a pip appeal today, has anyone recently attended one. Will appreciate advice

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Amarsingh

Citizen advice help me submit but felt was not very strong

poppy123456

Do you mean mandatory reconsideration or Tribunal? Did you send evidence to support your claim?

Amarsingh

poppy123456 said:

Do you mean mandatory reconsideration or Tribunal? Did you send evidence to support your claim?

It was for tribunal. I sent medical evidence old and new.. Citizen advice did not look at it and just enclosed in envolope... he did write good points but left could me better

markyboy

You can wait up to a year for a tribunal the DWP will send you a large bundle of paperwork which will outline their case read it all and submit your argument to the courts all this will be kept on file until you get a hearing

Amarsingh

So anything they miss i can mention on trinbunal.... my first appeal for DLA only lasted less than 5 minutes, they made a decision before meeting me and was awarded high rate for mobility, lets hope it happen again. They didn't even ask a single question

eeyore19

I ha e been told by the tribunal court that dwp have one calendar month to reply to appeal and then a week for handling and postage...... My reply was they have gone over that, and have been left not knowing what happens now...Do the dwp get an time extension ? Any ideas please ?

poppy123456

DWP have 28 days to request the statement of reasons, they don't have 28 days to decide if they're going to appeal. If you've recently won a Tribunal then it can take 6 weeks or more to receive backdated payments.

eeyore19

Thanks for your response Poppy... Haven't had the appeal yet They still haven't replied to the original appeal paperwork and this seems to be holding up me getting a date for appeal

debbiedo49

Do do you mean appeal or tribunal? I got welfare rights from council to help me through whole process. Get f2f advice please

eeyore19

Hi debbiedo49

Thanks for your reply.... It's tribunal and will defiantly take your advice with f2f

eeyore19

Thank you mikehughescq for your comment.... I guess it is a matter if of waiting for paperwork and getting face to face advise.
This has been hanging over me since December 2017.... If it has taught me anything, it has taught me I have patience that i never knew I had

ChrisG

When you get your bundle check every word that the decision maker (DM) has written in their response for contradictions. The response might also contain any arguments that they will use to counter what you said in your grounds for appeal. It will give you an indication of what they intend to argue. There may even be references to upper tribunal cases that reinforce their argument. You should read the full decision and if your case is different to that one you need to point out why.

In my partners case the DM says - “she has slightly reduced power in both legs (page 60)” - on three occasions regarding the daily living activities and then contradicts himself by saying “she has significantly reduced power in both legs (page 60)” regarding the mobility descriptors. If you look at page 60 in her bundle it clearly states that she had significantly reduced power in both legs.

I’m not sure if he is breaking the law, but he also goes onto say that the HP based her advice on how my partner was on the majority of days and not on an exacerbation of her condition. This is clearly something that he realised after the fact as he includes her ESA assessment report where her mobility was a lot better on that day. To say that the CM and he believes it was an exacerbation is one thing but to say that the HP based her advice on it being an exacerbation is quite another. The HP report does not mention that she thought it was an exacerbation and there was no mention of variability etc in the report. It is clear that she believed that it was how my partner was all the time as she states that it is consistent with her condition. It was an exacerbation, however, the HP clearly did not believe it was an exacerbation and therefore could not have based her advice on it being an exacerbation.

He also says that he agrees with the HP on all descriptor choices but then contradicts himself again and argues for different descriptors.

Pointing out these types of mistakes and contradictions will will help.

sks59

I took my sons case to Tribunal and we won, they back dated his money and increased his rates to the high amount.

eeyore19

I suppose every case is different.... My main thing that angered me was.... The assessor said I could walk to the local shop... That in it's self is beyond laughable as I live in a small village that doesn't have a shop.

eeyore19

That's what I'm doing.... Like I said every case is different I'm focused

ChrisG

ChrisG said:

When you get your bundle check every word that the decision maker (DM) has written in their response for contradictions. The response might also contain any arguments that they will use to counter what you said in your grounds for appeal. It will give you an indication of what they intend to argue. There may even be references to upper tribunal cases that reinforce their argument. You should read the full decision and if your case is different to that one you need to point out why.

In my partners case the DM says - “she has slightly reduced power in both legs (page 60)” - on three occasions regarding the daily living activities and then contradicts himself by saying “she has significantly reduced power in both legs (page 60)” regarding the mobility descriptors. If you look at page 60 in her bundle it clearly states that she had significantly reduced power in both legs.

I’m not sure if he is breaking the law, but he also goes onto say that the HP based her advice on how my partner was on the majority of days and not on an exacerbation of her condition. This is clearly something that he realised after the fact as he includes her ESA assessment report where her mobility was a lot better on that day. To say that the CM and he believes it was an exacerbation is one thing but to say that the HP based her advice on it being an exacerbation is quite another. The HP report does not mention that she thought it was an exacerbation and there was no mention of variability etc in the report. It is clear that she believed that it was how my partner was all the time as she states that it is consistent with her condition. It was an exacerbation, however, the HP clearly did not believe it was an exacerbation and therefore could not have based her advice on it being an exacerbation.

He also says that he agrees with the HP on all descriptor choices but then contradicts himself again and argues for different descriptors.

Pointing out these types of mistakes and contradictions will will help.

It’s a dangerous game to obsess too much on a submission from a decision maker. It’s computer generated with input from a DM where they select from a number of multiple choice paragraphs. Ditto the caselaw. It also means you’re walking into a tribunal assuming they are stupid and don’t know this. That never plays well. I’ve never read a DWP **** which wasn’t riddled with contradictions but highlighting that is just the same as picking apart a HCP report. It gives less weight to that evidence but it doesn’t mean you will win the appeal as that will depend on the strength of your own evidence.

It is important to make sure that you are prepared to put your evidence forward. It is even more dangerous to assume that the tribunal will pick up on everything that you know is wrong. They may even take the view that if you do not dispute it then it must be true. You need to be prepared to point out anything that they may have overlooked. They are human and do make mistakes too. I am not assuming they are stupid at all. If they pick up on it great, but if they don’t then I’m going to be able to put my points across.

The whole point of what I was saying was that it will give less weight to their evidence which is only going to help you win your case.

ChrisG

But if the DWP have 6 and I have 5 and I could take them down to 3 then it helps a lot.

ChrisG

The weight of your own evidence is obviously the most important, you seem to have come to a conclusion that I think all you have to do is show that the HP report is wrong and you will win the appeal. That is not what I think or what I said. When the whole decision is based on the informal observations of the HP it is hard to see how you can argue that the decision is wrong without pointing out that the report is wrong and why.

ChrisG

Username_removed said:

Yes, but that isn’t going to happen. In a tribunal they will either accept there are flaws in the HCP report or they won’t. The nuances of that largely don’t interest them. There’s not enough hours in the day to pick apart the issues with HCP reports. They will concentrate on the claim pack; your medical and anecdotal evidence and your verbal evidence on the day. The combination of those will either give your evidence weight or not. If they think you’re inconsistent or have little to back up your assertions then the little weight they give to a HCPs report will matter not. The weight of your own evidence will fall short.

They don’t have time to pick apart the report, this is why it is important to do it yourself while you are waiting. You can then quickly show where and why the HCP is wrong. They are then more likely to put less weight on the fake report and more weight on your factual evidence. The SSWP always argues that more weight should be put on the most recent evidence gathered at the PIP assessment. Doing this will destroy that argument straight away and then you can focus on putting forward your own evidence

Picking apart the HCP report allowed me to understand the thought processes that went into making the false report, the importance of each of the lies she told and how they were used to justify advising the descriptors she did. I have also been able to figure out the parts of the legislation each of the lies is associated with and the case law that they will rely on at the tribunal.

Because I did this before submitting the grounds for appeal I was able to point out the errors in the grounds for appeal. This meant that the DM had deal with some of the issues I brought up and revealed the position that they are going take at tribunal.

My partner feels more confident now of winning because I have been able to pick apart the report. She is less anxious and stressed now and that alone is a good enough reason to do it.

ChrisG

Your whole point seems to be that you know for a fact that a tribunal will assume that I think they are stupid just because I decided to pick apart the report. Then they will get annoyed and have a tantrum like a five year old because I insulted them and not consider any thing else I have to say whether it is relevant or not.

What a load of rubbish.