example from a Statement of Reasons

MikeyMoo

Does anyone have an example from a Statement of Reasons from the Lower Tier Tribunal, whereby they state you will not be considered to reapply for PIP, after they refused your claim for PIP?

CockneyRebel

Hi @MikeyMoo and welcome

Sorry, I have never come across this, it sounds a bit drastic. Hopefully one of our more knowledgeable members may have an answer for you

BenefitsTrainingCo

Hi @MikeyMoo I've seen a lot of statements of reasons over many years.  I have never seen one which says claimants cannot re-apply.  I have tried to think of when that might be, but the only definite situation of no PIP entitlement relates to age, and to be honest, if an appeal request was made which clearly had no merit I would expect it to be struck out on request rather than actually going to a hearing.  Sorry not to be of more help. Sarah

twonker

Maybe the Tribunal were trying to be helpful and practical.
The weakness of the claim they had before them was unlikely ever to form the basis of a PIP award. 
They are suggesting that you would be wasting your time, that of the DWP, the assessor and the tribunal in making another claim identical to the one originally made?
A PIP award is not going to be happening anytime soon.

CockneyRebel

Hi Mikey

Stating the obvious, I presume that you did not get an award. We are not here to judge, would you like to tell us a bit about the reason for your claim ?

It might be a good idea, if you are planning on making a new application, to have a look at the descriptors and take the self test. This will give you an idea where you fit with the PIP system

 Take the PIP test

wilko

The the claimant not giving, telling the whole story like so many that we are left to assume the whys and where fore's of the claimants perusing their claim. Had the poster given all the relevant details of their case then community members can advise accordingly  alas so many do not present all the facts and information to enable a correct and helpful reply.

MikeyMoo

Hi All, sorry if I was a bit vague, it's my first visit.
I was told by CAB, after showing them the Statement of Reasons that, in their opinion the statement said I could not re-apply. After I investigated the CAB apologised to me as they got their wires crossed.
I know I cannot challenge the judge on points of law, but am concerned about the language he used in his summation IE.
Is conveying someone is ‘noticeably overweight’ likely to cause that person or some other person serious harm? 
Is deciding I am getting heavier an assumption he should not be using. After a diagnoses of Type 2 Diabetes, I have actually lost 1/2 a stone!
Is conveying someone who in the Judge’s opinion that “their claims are grossly exaggerated” not harmful? 
I volunteer in the CP area and through my contacts there, I know this judge is very opinionated about claimants, but such hateful language, especially as my psychotherapist explains I have deep seated body image issues.

Many thanks for taking the time to respond, very much appreciated.

Mikeymoo

braca

@ilovecats in an earlier comment on another post you disputed this figure of 70%+ appeals are in favour of appellant and think you mentioned o.4% ? My own opinion is that you are on this forum to try and improve the image of either IAS or Capita and to get into the minds of vulnerable people who then get more confused about their entitlement to benefits.

braca

@ilovecats you are advising vulnerable people that they must comply with a flawed drop down box functional assessment of which assessors are highly trained to IAS/CAPITA degree level that they have to complete within 4 weeks so that type of assessment might be ok for some but certainly not for those who have complex issues. you mentioned in a previous post that the Government cant give everyone money who claims PIP. yet you had no qualms about taking highly inflated wages from assessment providers who struggle to take on and retain staff and could not give a toss about peoples disabilities...you say as an ex assessor you give out advice on this forum but take a step back and you will see that you are still brainwashed by them...>:)

Fitznspatz

If an organisation is struggling “to take on and retain staff” then logic and market forces tell us it is not paying “highly inflated wages”. I would also question the blanket assertion that assessors do not give a toss about people’s disabilities. 

Personally I find ilovecats’ posts to be among the most helpful on this forum.

CockneyRebel

@ilovecats

There should be no need for you to feel that you have to defend yourself. Your insight to the other side of the assessment process is invaluable. It is far to easy for a claimant to adopt the " Woe is me " attitude, " I am ill so I should get paid ".

No one is saying that the system is perfect, certainly not you but without trying to see both sides the establishment and its employees are demonised which does not help anyone move forward 

twonker

braca said:

@ilovecats you are advising vulnerable people that they must comply with a flawed drop down box functional assessment of which assessors are highly trained to IAS/CAPITA degree level that they have to complete within 4 weeks so that type of assessment might be ok for some but certainly not for those who have complex issues. you mentioned in a previous post that the Government cant give everyone money who claims PIP. yet you had no qualms about taking highly inflated wages from assessment providers who struggle to take on and retain staff and could not give a toss about peoples disabilities...you say as an ex assessor you give out advice on this forum but take a step back and you will see that you are still brainwashed by them...>:)

The only person on this thread that is fixated on hate is you. Why are you spouting such rubbish on a forum that is there to help people? Nothing in your posts could conceivably be said to be help and advice.
Yes you have your warped opinion but please don't try to force it on us.

braca

Twanker thank you for the kind words in support of my opinion and can only apologise for coming across as forceful, can you please advise on my recent PIP MR that one of the helpline people told me had been returned to IAS to be looked at by another assessor before being returned to Case manager to make decision, was also advised to ask for PA5 report ? can you advise if I am on right track despite you and others on forum giving myself such character assassination that well and truly hurts and not what one would expect on a forum like Scope who offer great advice. 

twonker

You have asked the DWP to have another look by a different decision maker of your PIP decision. It is entirely possible that this new decision maker has noticed something as regards the evidence/assessor's report that requires further advice on. Once the new decision maker receives this information he should be able to give his/her view on the original decision, beit keep it the same. reduce it or increase it. 

CockneyRebel

ilovecats said:

Extra info, the person who has been asked to look at the information again will not have any contact with the original assessor. They make their own decision based on all the information submitted by the claimant and what the assessment report says. If they feel the report poo it will be sent back for a rework or the claimant will be asked to come back in.

Sorry but that did make me laugh

CockneyRebel

LOL

twonker

ilovecats said:

Extra info, the person who has been asked to look at the information again will not have any contact with the original assessor. They make their own decision based on all the information submitted by the claimant and what the assessment report says. If they feel the report poo it will be sent back for a rework or the claimant will be asked to come back in.

Surely they cannot put that onto the claimant. If the assessor makes a complete mess of the assessment why should it be the fault of the claimant? Having to go through another assessment because of someone's incompetence is not really how this should work. Do  the DWP not realise how much it takes out of the claimant to even attend the first one?

CockneyRebel

If an assessment is not fit for purpose, then how can a claimant be assessed at the correct rate without a further assessment ? No, it should not happen. Assessors are human and mistakes will be made but if there is insufficient information on the report then I see no other option. Better the stress of another assessment than a failure

twonker

CockneyRebel said:

If an assessment is not fit for purpose, then how can a claimant be assessed at the correct rate without a further assessment ? No, it should not happen. Assessors are human and mistakes will be made but if there is insufficient information on the report then I see no other option. Better the stress of another assessment than a failure

Does there really have to be another face to face assessment?
Given that none of this is the fault of the claimant could not the assessing company and the DWP work together to see what information was gathered at the assessment that is not in dispute, consider what other evidence may be available, claim form, written evidence, and maybe they could contact the respective medical/social contact that the claimant agreed to the claim form? What about a paper based report?
Having done all of that then yes the ultimate scenario is that another assessment is carried out.

I do suspect however that the assessor and the DWP don't want to put that amount of extra work in as it is much easier to put the responsibility onto the claimant to have to go through another assessment.

twonker

ilovecats said:

twonker said:

CockneyRebel said:

If an assessment is not fit for purpose, then how can a claimant be assessed at the correct rate without a further assessment ? No, it should not happen. Assessors are human and mistakes will be made but if there is insufficient information on the report then I see no other option. Better the stress of another assessment than a failure

Does there really have to be another face to face assessment?
Given that none of this is the fault of the claimant could not the assessing company and the DWP work together to see what information was gathered at the assessment that is not in dispute, consider what other evidence may be available, claim form, written evidence, and maybe they could contact the respective medical/social contact that the claimant agreed to the claim form? What about a paper based report?
Having done all of that then yes the ultimate scenario is that another assessment is carried out.

I do suspect however that the assessor and the DWP don't want to put that amount of extra work in as it is much easier to put the responsibility onto the claimant to have to go through another assessment.

It is not the fault of the claimant, you are right. 

A paper based report can only be completed if a enough evidence has been sent to the DWP in the first place. Every claim is reviewed to see if could potentially be a paper based review however not many can be because the information given is normally poor or very contradictory. Hence the need for a face to face. 

Even if a PBR is attempted, normally due to the DWP time restrictions, if the GP or any medical contact that the claimant has put down, has not agreed to provide information within (3 days i think) then it will go to F2F.

A second face to face will only occur if not enough information was gathered the first time around. If the initial assessment was poor, it is better to get the person in again and a better quality of information gathered. 

Sorry and no disrespect intended but no time limit of that nature should be enforced. As I have said it is up to both the DWP and the assessor to do everything within their power with no stone left unturned and without unreasonable time limit, to rectify the 'error'.  I am sure that the claimant would want that to happen and would not be bothered if it took another 3/4 weeks to sort out. Better that than face another gruelling face to face assessment.

CockneyRebel

Not all assessment are gruelling, not pleasant I grant you but shouldn't the focus be on collecting the best information so that the claimant is given the correct award first time ? A new assessment should at least have a starting point from the original. Even with the time limits removed, many GP's can still only attest to medical condition and not functional ability which is the purpose of the assessment in the first place