Contradictory PIP decision

SMW83

Hi all,

I have been in reciept for around four years owing to suffery PTSD, Agoraphobia, Depression and Anxiety.

I undertook reassessment in July 2016 where I had to
take it to appeal, where I was awarded standard rate for both components. The award was given until September 2020. However, many issues arose subsequent to the decision and I was not ‘officially’ given the award until December 2017. Owing to the 18 month dispute I had with the DWP, a family death amongst other issues, my doctor contacted the DWP in March this year to advise that my health had declined substantially and it was her belief this was predominantly owing to the issues I had been subjected to by the DWP. In spite of this, a reassessment was initiated as they believed it to be a change in circumstance and the process began again.

I was then contacted by ATOS/Capita who stated that they didn’t believe I needed a face to face assessment as the medical evidence was more than sufficient. I then received a decision last week. 

Whilst I have still been awarded the same award, in the section ‘My decision’ it states two points that I find extremely contradictory.

Firstly, it states that ‘due to the medical evidence we have extended you award’. However the award is until September 2020 (being contacted after 2019 to begin reassessment) so in fact no extension has been made at all.

They also state that ‘We set your previous award as we believed your illnesses may improve during this time, however your medical evidence shows no improvement has been made hence our extending of your award’. Again this is extremely contradictory as the medical evidence states that I have made no improvement in the 2 & a half years since the last award yet I have been given (taking into account the commencement date of my next reassessment) 9 months in which to ‘recover’.

I have sent a mandatory reconsideration highlighting these facts but having spoken to them today, they are stating that without new medical evidence, they cannot see the decision changing.

Considering the decision was made on the strength of the medical evidence provided to them, I do not see what offering them more evidence, that will offer no new information per se, will achieve. Atos/Capita also spoke with my GP late October so very little has changed in the intervening time.

I also feel for them to have stated both points they made as above, they are kind of disregarding their own decision/statement.

Whilst I don’t want to have to take it to appeal again, I believe that is the only way a fair and impartial decision would be made. If anyone has any suggestion or advice so I do not have to take it as far as reassessment, it would be much appreciated.