If this is your first visit, check out the community guide. You will have to Join us or Sign in before you can post.
Receiving too many notifications? Adjust your notification settings.
PIP tribunal fail... Help!!
Kttyn
Member Posts: 17 Connected
I have just received a letter from the tribunal I attended yesterday denying me daily care but awarding me mobility.
All the evidence i gave them, the doctors letters, the early help case assessment and young carers case worker. Everything and the fact I was a wreck throughout the whole 45 minutes.. And they have refused it
I desperately need the care element, can anyone help me / advise me on what I need to do next?
All the evidence i gave them, the doctors letters, the early help case assessment and young carers case worker. Everything and the fact I was a wreck throughout the whole 45 minutes.. And they have refused it
I desperately need the care element, can anyone help me / advise me on what I need to do next?
Replies
Scope
Tell us what you think?
Complete our feedback form to help us to improve your community.
This has all been going on since July 31st last year
You need expert advice with this. Good luck.
2) Insufficient findings of fact.
3) Perversity.
... and the 2 others I can never remember as I age
Had the evidence been a game changer then you’d almost certainly get DWP requesting a set aside if an award resulted.
I had the letters from my doctor all ready I was just waiting for the mental health team. And I sent it all in a week before like they told me to.
Nothing suspicious in the end of week/next day comment. Most tribunals make same day decisions but they’re typed and distributed by the clerk and the speed of that depends on whether they’re doing more outdoor clerking the next day or heading back to HQ. Unless they specifically discuss it with the clerk most tribunals wouldn’t know what the clerk is doing next.
If they had the evidence and didn’t want to go through it on the day that says
a) out of time.
b) the evidence they had seen and heard went overwhelmingly against you and anything new was unlikely to change their decision.
Both of the above could be errors of law (breach of natural justice/failing to take into account relevant considerations) but they’re not ordinarily set aside territory. However, sometimes a DJ will set aside a tribunal even when they shouldn’t just because they have issues with the judge or wish to make a point.
The evidence in my favour was overwhelming. My early help case worker even wrote a statement that should my children have to continue in the role as my main carers then there may be a child protection issue... Nothing against me, I'm trying my hardest but I'm not well... They even had that and still denied it ..
The guy sat in the middle was a complete ass..... Wasn't interested in what I was saying and kept putting my points down
It is very rare for someone to lose a case when the evidence is truly overwhelming. Your example of the early help case worker is a fine example. It is literally nothing to the point and the tribunal will also have smelt possible BS.
Firstly, the only relevance of the care provided by your children is whether their assistance scores points under specific activities or not. Secondly, young carers are not a child protection issue unless something else is going on. If that is what you think amounts to good evidence then, to be blunt, you were poorly advised by someone somewhere along the line.
At no point have I inferred you were trying to ‘pull a con”. The point I was making is that the evidence you think was great was misdirected and transparently wrong. Young carers, once identified, get assessed and supported and not threatened with there being a child protection issue unless there is some other reason for that to be the case.
That guy in the middle you describe as a “complete ass” was a solicitor or barrister with at least 10 years post qualifying experience. Many of them will have worked for local authorities and several will have worked in child protection. Telling them that having your children continue to provide care may become a child protection issue potentially lacks credibility and consequently could undermine other elements of your case.
My “tone” in this instance is trying to point out that what you think is black and white and really obvious absolutely isn’t.
Its bad enough feeling like a Failure .... But to then have people throw your disability into your face... This country is truly messed up
So my grandson who is 13 if promised a new game for his xbox would write a letter that would see the tears rolling down the Judge's cheeks! - Evidence?
What I think the claimants do need is simple understandable English coming from the DWP so that it is easy to understand the system. None of this case law or definitions of words - it should be written as it is so that (in my case at least) that the over 65's who are ill, disabled etc can get to grips with a simple system.
As regards your last paragraph I’d say we have 70 years of evidence, of which UC is the latest example, that you can have simplicity or fairness but not both.
So simplicity and ease of application, assessment and decision is not possible if fairness is then added into the equation.
No wonder I have had 23 years of aggravation from the DWP, where I have lost my temper with assessors, where I have written letters of complaint that are never answered.
I have always believed that when dealing with any problem that if you break it down into it's simplest form so that it is easily understood everyone involved will see that fairness becomes the norm.
This is the very reason why it is important for everyone to access good advice and help all the way through the procedure - my understanding of it must be common amongst other claimants.
It's like you said in another of your threads to understand the difference between continual and continuous. Only when the penny drops eventually will people see things differently. My penny is still hanging there with all of the information and advice that I am reading on this site but unable to still fully understand how it all fits together. It's either a mental blockage thing, or maybe a side effect of my damaged brain or maybe it is the simple answer of getting old, I don't know.
And if I don't know and remain confused my automatic reaction is to do nothing for fear of being seen to be stupid or ignorant or feel rejected by others around me. It's very much like not willing to make claims for benefit without first knowing how the system works and that I would have an good chance of it being awarded without having to fight for it if I did make the claim. I have never made any speculative claims for help - preferring to know as much about the subject being applied for as anyone else.
For one reason or another such people that used to offer that all in one support are long gone. try getting a face to face appointment within 2 weeks at a CAB only to be told sorry we are too busy and then to find out that they no longer will give support at a Tribunal hearing.
Even harder try finding a good advisor - they are like gold dust.
In the meantime we all muddle through thinking that we know what we are doing only to find out later down the line that we don't.
I keep hearing this thing about medical descriptors. They’re not medical at all. They’re functional. You score points for not being able to perform a specific activity reliably.
I also keep hearing this statement that HCPs are not qualified to judge but it makes no sense. They don’t get enough training but they are absolutely qualified and medical training is certainly not required to do functional assessments. How does a physio assess what their clients need from them? Er... Ditto an OT abd indeed paramedics. It’s a transferable skill and completely relevant. The issue lies with the software they use; the time they’re allocated and a DWP culture which does not accurately weigh evidence.
Finally, it’s worth saying that such is the misunderstanding of the role of the HCP that people genuinely believe there’s some sort of obligation for them to note down what you say. There isn’t. They are obligated to listen; note what they feel is relevant and form their own judgement.