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 to upper tribunal

Sasha171216

i took my pip appeal to the UT.The FTT refused it but I can still appeal.I am uncertain as to what to include.I am appealling as i feel there was an error in law -that the SOR contained irrelevant and incorrect information.It entitled a non GP as a GP-does that count as an error?and the judge commented on every gp consultation in a 5 year period which is irrelevant to PIP .(some of what gp 's recorded as my reason for appt is incorrect).The judge fabricated her own opinions and stated things about me she did not know and were not true.

PIP is about what i cannot do and scores points for using aids/help received etc.-not what a gp writes in my notes.

what should i include in my appeal and should i keep it brief or go into detail-which I tend to do.
should i include what a benefits website stated that "if you could do some of the things but not reliably safelly or repeatedly or on;y very slowly for the majority of days eg if you can stamd and walk for 50m but only if you can do it a few times a day it may cause you pain -you msy fall or it takes you twice as long as someone else-the LAW states this is seen as not being able to walk 50 m.

should i enclose the PIP self test results and that of the CAB who "scored me maximum points for both parts )/
any avbice greastly received

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

poppy123456

HI,

Have you requested the statement of reasons and record of proceedings within 1 month of the date of the decision?

You can't appeal the decision unless an error in law is found and you'll need to get some face to face advice. No one on forum can tell if there's any error in law.

This link will help you find what's available local to you for advice. https://advicelocal.uk/

Sasha171216

I can appeal -the FTT give that opportunity,Error in law includes incorrect info and there is incorrect info in the SOR plus some of what is in the SOR is irrelevant to PIP.PIP is about what i cannnot do what aids i used and what help i need/get,not what about a conversation between my gp and me

Sasha171216

the only things they need to know are my conditions and how they affect me,.gp records are a lot of "their opinion" not fact.A gp accused me of "walking out on him" when i told him i had to leave to catch my last bus home-he did not put that in my notes,,its known thatgp's protect btheir own backs and dont admit to their "errors".A Mental health person cannot comment on my physical condition when they only deal with mental health.Just because my fibromyalgia is not mentioned very often-it is because there is no treatment other than medication and doctors cant do anymore about it,
when the same has been accepted since 1998 by DWP I dont suddenly get cured of all m y conditions and have been diagnosed with arthritis and raynauds since 1995 which meant could not do my job - and OA was confirmed by xrays in my hands this year.cant say there is no evidence of arthritis.
there is one error-she labelled a non gp as a gp .-havent checked dates as yet,

poppy123456

What a GP says about a claimants condition isn't an error in law. It's a GP's opinion. PIP is about how your conditions affect your ability to carry out daily activity based on the PIP descriptors, not about a diagnosis. PIP was only introduced in 2013 so i'm assuming the benefit you were claiming in 1998 was DLA? If so then DLA and PIP are different benefits with different criteria.

As advised, you really do need face to face advice.

cristobal

@Sasha171216 - having read through your posts I tend to agree with @ilovecats.

You say that "GP records are a lot of "their opinion" not fact" , they "don' t admit their errors", and "can't say that there is no evidence of arthritis"

Surely these are 'errors' that your GP has made?I imagine it would be hard to show that your GP's notes were 'irrelevant' - just because they don't support what you are saying.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that an 'error in law' relates to the procedures that the tribunal has followed not the conclusion that they arrive at so a 'fabricated opinion' wouldn't be an error - it's the judge's opinion, with which you obviously disagree.

Sasha171216

error in law includes irrelevant information ,PIP is about how my conditions affect me in carrying out-or not carrying out daily activities.-not the content of a consultation.
its not what "the Gp says about my conditions not being an error in law"-it is about the tribunal judge commenting on things that bear no relevance to PIP and fabricating/exagerrating.she claimed I saw my gp "every three days" over the 5 year period and referred to a DR H B where HB is not a DR.she stated that it was only up to sept 2017 -but referred to things after that date.
the assessor said "there is no sign of arthritis".I was diagnosed with Arthritis and raynauds in 1995 which meant i could not do every aspect of my job -as well as fibromyalgia although that was not diagnosed at the time and i lost ,my job as a result of my poor health.Arthritis was confirmed in 2018 -osteoarthritis in both hands by XRAY.
i fully intend to appeal to UT -someone else did and pointed out everything that was wrong with her SOR and was awarded PIP by the UT.she has given me advice.

buzzer

@Sasha171216
If the GP Practise has released irrelevant or what you feel is incorrect information it needs correcting.

GDPR provides the following rights for individuals:

The right to be informed
The right of access
The right to rectification
The right to erasure
The right to restrict processing
The right to data portability
The right to object
Rights in relation to automated decision making and profiling.

The link below, here on scope although not a substitute for legal advice.
states under examples of errors in the law

The decision failed to take account of things that were relevant or took account of irrelevant things.

It also provides links to various legal organisations you may find helpful

https://www.scope.org.uk/advice-and-support/further-appeal-upper-tribunal/

david235

@Sasha171216 I'm a first time poster but some time lurker. I am a disabled person who has completed all but the last module of a law degree.

A legal decision is reached by making findings of fact then applying the law to those findings of fact. Appeals to the Upper Tribunal ("UT") must be on errors of law.

As has been said, the only way to get an informed opinion on whether there is an arguable case before the Upper Tribunal is to ask a suitably qualified person to review your Decision and Statement of Reasons ("SOR"). I join those who recommend that you get this advice. Whilst Legal Help has been eliminated from most stages of the benefits system, some Legal Help remains for appeals to the Upper Tribunal and the appellate courts; there is advice on this on Scope's page about the Upper Tribunal.

Most of the points you raise appear to be about the evidence that was before the First-tier Tribunal ("FtT") and the findings of fact FtT reached on that evidence. There is only an error of law if FtT could not legitimately have reached its finding on evidence - that is, the evidence is wholly incapable of supporting the finding being more likely correct than incorrect; in other words, the civil standard of proof has been incorrectly applied. In many cases there is more than one conclusion FtT could reach on a point, depending on how it weights the conflicting evidence before it; weighting the evidence in a way that is unfavourable to the claimant is unlikely to be an error of law.

You would have been sent the case bundle before your tribunal; if you did not raise an objection to something in that bundle then FtT was entitled to proceed on the basis that you agreed with the evidence on that point. This is relevant to the arthritis in your hands - the assessor found no sign of arthritis when he or she examined you, but you could have challenged that point using the X-ray evidence assuming the conclusions from that X-ray could apply to the day when the initial decision was reached. Reconsideration and Tribunals cannot consider matters arising after the initial decision, but can consider evidence dated after the initial decision if that evidence explains the situation on or before the day of the decision. Of course, whether you do or do not have arthritis is not the key issue for PIP - it is the effect of any problems with your hands on your ability to perform the PIP activities.

You seem to be trying to pick apart FtT's decision by finding every apparent discrepancy in the Decision, SOR and the underlying evidence. Unless an error changed or could have changed the decision, it is of no legal consequence; an inconsequential error of fact does not magically make the decision fall apart. It follows that an incorrect date in the SOR does not amount to an error of law unless it resulted in the decision being incorrect.

Every decision maker - be it a DWP decision maker or a Tribunal - makes their decision(s) based on the evidence before it. The decision maker must make their own independent decision by making findings of fact based on the evidence, then applying the law to those facts. If the decision maker gives up their independence in favour of someone else's opinion on what should be the correct decision then they have made an error of law known as fettering of discretion, which will be familiar to those who have studied the law surrounding judicial review. This explains why the decision maker sometimes reaches a different conclusion to the assessor - the assessor's scores are a recommendation to the decision maker based on the evidence, but the decision maker will review that evidence and must depart from the assessor's conclusion when they feel applying the law to the evidence requires a different conclusion. It follows from this that what the PIP self-test and the CAB say about your particular case are irrelevant to all decision makers, not just the Upper Tribunal.

The task you faced at FtT was the same that you faced at initial application and at Reconsideration - to show that you more likely than not met the legal tests for award of benefit. An application to UT is an appeal against the FtT's decision alleging one or more specific errors of law leading to an incorrect decision, not an opportunity to bombard the Tribunal with every error or discrepancy in FtT's decision. Bringing up errors that cannot change the decision unhelpfully draws attention away from those arguments that could change the decision. In any legal argument, working out what to leave out is almost as important as working out should go in.

Judges of the Upper Tribunal are experienced lawyers; I know one of the Deputy Judges (which means she is a part-time Judge) who makes some Social Security decisions and she is a barrister with decades of experience. "Safely / acceptable standard / repeatedly / reasonable time period" is a very well known part of Regulation 4 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/377) (as amended). You probably do not need to establish this in any appeal, but if you want to mention this or any other area of the law, the Upper Tribunal is perhaps a level where it would be best to use correct legal citation. A Judge of the Upper Tribunal will attempt to be flexible and ensure full participation of all parties including an benefit claimant who is not legally represented - these things are, indeed, mandated by rule 2 of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698) (as amended). However, the Judge cannot go beyond that into making the claimant's case for them if their submission cannot be understood or is legally incorrect. Case law is particularly important to cite correctly - if the case cannot be identified, you risk any arguments based on it being rejected.

The Upper Tribunal can be very slow - it can take a year for the Upper Tribunal to reach its decision. Successful cases in the Upper Tribunal are often sent back to the First-tier Tribunal with directions for rehearing. At this stage, it can make sense to make a fresh application for benefit to deal with the time from the date of your new claim onwards. Any appeal will then be concerned solely with the time up to your fresh claim. There are advantages and disadvantages in making a new claim - as the Scope page on the Upper Tribunal says, this is a matter where you should take advice about your individual circumstances.

Sasha171216

buzzer said:

@Sasha171216
If the GP Practise has released irrelevant or what you feel is incorrect information it needs correcting.

GDPR provides the following rights for individuals:
The right to be informed
The right of access
The right to rectification
The right to erasure
The right to restrict processing
The right to data portability
The right to object
Rights in relation to automated decision making and profiling.
The link below, here on scope although not a substitute for legal advice.
states under examples of errors in the law
The decision failed to take account of things that were relevant or took account of irrelevant things.
It also provides links to various legal organisations you may find helpful
https://www.scope.org.uk/advice-and-support/further-appeal-upper-tribunal/

they say that records cant be changed if incorrect,only that an addendum can be placed on my record,the gp could have changed what he recorded in my electronic notes -i dont know if they can-but he blatantly lied about every aspect of the consltation.-from reason for it-and what i told him and what he claimed to have "explained".,the only thing that was corrext was that it was a telephone conversation and he ended it by slamming the phone down on me,

regarding error s in law-that is the error i used to submit appeal to the UT.-as they referred to gp appointments and things that were outside of the timescale they stated ie before jan 2012 and after sept 2017.The judge stated that "because my dog had died of cancer-i thought i had "spreading cancer"-not only heartless but extremely hurtful.I lost my best friend and companion when i had to have him PTS because of cancer and i could not put him thru chemotherapy,

Sasha171216

david235 said:

@Sasha171216 I'm a first time poster but some time lurker. I am a disabled person who has completed all but the last module of a law degree.

A legal decision is reached by making findings of fact then applying the law to those findings of fact. Appeals to the Upper Tribunal ("UT") must be on errors of law.

As has been said, the only way to get an informed opinion on whether there is an arguable case before the Upper Tribunal is to ask a suitably qualified person to review your Decision and Statement of Reasons ("SOR"). I join those who recommend that you get this advice. Whilst Legal Help has been eliminated from most stages of the benefits system, some Legal Help remains for appeals to the Upper Tribunal and the appellate courts; there is advice on this on Scope's page about the Upper Tribunal.

Most of the points you raise appear to be about the evidence that was before the First-tier Tribunal ("FtT") and the findings of fact FtT reached on that evidence. There is only an error of law if FtT could not legitimately have reached its finding on evidence - that is, the evidence is wholly incapable of supporting the finding being more likely correct than incorrect; in other words, the civil standard of proof has been incorrectly applied. In many cases there is more than one conclusion FtT could reach on a point, depending on how it weights the conflicting evidence before it; weighting the evidence in a way that is unfavourable to the claimant is unlikely to be an error of law.

You would have been sent the case bundle before your tribunal; if you did not raise an objection to something in that bundle then FtT was entitled to proceed on the basis that you agreed with the evidence on that point. This is relevant to the arthritis in your hands - the assessor found no sign of arthritis when he or she examined you, but you could have challenged that point using the X-ray evidence assuming the conclusions from that X-ray could apply to the day when the initial decision was reached. Reconsideration and Tribunals cannot consider matters arising after the initial decision, but can consider evidence dated after the initial decision if that evidence explains the situation on or before the day of the decision. Of course, whether you do or do not have arthritis is not the key issue for PIP - it is the effect of any problems with your hands on your ability to perform the PIP activities.

You seem to be trying to pick apart FtT's decision by finding every apparent discrepancy in the Decision, SOR and the underlying evidence. Unless an error changed or could have changed the decision, it is of no legal consequence; an inconsequential error of fact does not magically make the decision fall apart. It follows that an incorrect date in the SOR does not amount to an error of law unless it resulted in the decision being incorrect.

Every decision maker - be it a DWP decision maker or a Tribunal - makes their decision(s) based on the evidence before it. The decision maker must make their own independent decision by making findings of fact based on the evidence, then applying the law to those facts. If the decision maker gives up their independence in favour of someone else's opinion on what should be the correct decision then they have made an error of law known as fettering of discretion, which will be familiar to those who have studied the law surrounding judicial review. This explains why the decision maker sometimes reaches a different conclusion to the assessor - the assessor's scores are a recommendation to the decision maker based on the evidence, but the decision maker will review that evidence and must depart from the assessor's conclusion when they feel applying the law to the evidence requires a different conclusion. It follows from this that what the PIP self-test and the CAB say about your particular case are irrelevant to all decision makers, not just the Upper Tribunal.

The task you faced at FtT was the same that you faced at initial application and at Reconsideration - to show that you more likely than not met the legal tests for award of benefit. An application to UT is an appeal against the FtT's decision alleging one or more specific errors of law leading to an incorrect decision, not an opportunity to bombard the Tribunal with every error or discrepancy in FtT's decision. Bringing up errors that cannot change the decision unhelpfully draws attention away from those arguments that could change the decision. In any legal argument, working out what to leave out is almost as important as working out should go in.

Judges of the Upper Tribunal are experienced lawyers; I know one of the Deputy Judges (which means she is a part-time Judge) who makes some Social Security decisions and she is a barrister with decades of experience. "Safely / acceptable standard / repeatedly / reasonable time period" is a very well known part of Regulation 4 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/377) (as amended). You probably do not need to establish this in any appeal, but if you want to mention this or any other area of the law, the Upper Tribunal is perhaps a level where it would be best to use correct legal citation. A Judge of the Upper Tribunal will attempt to be flexible and ensure full participation of all parties including an benefit claimant who is not legally represented - these things are, indeed, mandated by rule 2 of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698) (as amended). However, the Judge cannot go beyond that into making the claimant's case for them if their submission cannot be understood or is legally incorrect. Case law is particularly important to cite correctly - if the case cannot be identified, you risk any arguments based on it being rejected.

The Upper Tribunal can be very slow - it can take a year for the Upper Tribunal to reach its decision. Successful cases in the Upper Tribunal are often sent back to the First-tier Tribunal with directions for rehearing. At this stage, it can make sense to make a fresh application for benefit to deal with the time from the date of your new claim onwards. Any appeal will then be concerned solely with the time up to your fresh claim. There are advantages and disadvantages in making a new claim - as the Scope page on the Upper Tribunal says, this is a matter where you should take advice about your individual circumstances.

i am nit reading all of your post -my fibro brain cant take things in-but you are wrong re the HP saying there is no sign of arthritis in y hands-this was diagnosed in 1994-the reason why i could not do my job and resulting in loss of job on medical grounds in 1998 and confirmed by doctors since.the hp lied about many things and it is known they deliberately lie about things not to award PIP. and he did not see me sort thru papers as he claimed-nor seeme hold snythng for a short time,if he did he would have seen that my hands were swollen and deformity.-The judge made assumptions -stated three times that "PIP is about what you can/cannot do" and stated that my DLA waS awarded for "main meal"-yes even in 1999 I could not prepare a meal from fresh ingredients-which was accepted for ESA in both 2013 amnd 2017-2 months before PIP f2f,judge aklso claimed "i saw gp every three days for 5 years."
Also accepted in ESA was ability not to be ble to walk more than 40 m.that i cannot stand o r sit for very long.do not have manual dexterity-ie holding things,using computer keyboard/mouse/pens,can commnicate message by speech -need to type.not aware of hazards.dont remember to do things,cant plan or concentrate on thngs,cant cope with changes go places dont know
the CAB advised tom put in a new claim as conditions worsened (And more so snce 2011,)and again 2016./chamnge of circumstances.

Jurph

I think the main point here is that you can't appeal to UT based on that you disagree with the opinions of health care professionals.

That's what the FtT is for.

I think you really need to consider getting legal advice if you want to take this further.

poppy123456

A poorly presented case can often lead to refusal, even with representation.

david235

@Sasha171216 You keep going over the grounds for previous decisions and decisions for other benefits, but those past decisions do not really help you here. When you are reassessed for a benefit or make a renewal application, DWP has decided a fresh decision is needed on that benefit. You should start with a clean sheet of paper and put forward all the arguments relevant for the tests for that benefit at the current time, with any relevant supporting evidence.

Nobody here can advise you on the merits of your case as we don't have access to your case papers. That advice really should come from a suitably qualified person, as has been said.

As @poppy123456 says, a poorly presented case can often lead to refusal. It is easy to lose the good points amongst a load of arguments that do not help your case.

@Jurph is right to note that you cannot use the UT to take issue with evidence in the FtT case bundle or oral evidence before FtT. Your opportunity to do that was at the FtT stage. You do not get a further chance to make submissions concerning the evidence at the UT stage - you can only argue that the FtT could not have reasonably reached one or more conclusions it did based on the evidence. The barrier to such an argument is high, because you would have to show that no properly functioning FtT could have decided the conclusion at issue was more likely than not true based on the evidence before it.

I'm unclear what else, if anything, you believe was an error of law in your case.

Going to UT is risky because of the time it takes. If you go to the UT, and do not make a new claim for PIP, you might not get a decision until next summer. If that decision does not increase your award from the current 0 points, then you will finish up with no PIP until you start a new claim.

Something has gone very wrong this time round. You've had three attempts to make your case and each one has given you no points according to a post yo umade elsewhere in the forums. My gut feeling - and it can be no more because I don't have your case papers - is that the problems with your case as it stands after FtT might be far beyond what is possible to fix and reasonably fixable at the Upper Tribunal, meaning your best option may well be to make a fresh claim for PIP. I cannot be certain - I simply don't know. If you make a fresh application to FtT you can still appeal to UT - but the UT decision will only cover the period between first day you had no DLA or PIP following the failure of this claim and the date of your new claim.

david235

david235 said:

If you make a fresh application to FtT you can still appeal to UT - but the UT decision will only cover the period between first day you had no DLA or PIP following the failure of this claim and the date of your new claim.

I just noticed an error in this final sentence of my last post. I did of course mean "If you make a fresh application for PIP".

The only way a case can go back to FtT is if an appeal to UT partly or fully succeeds, and UT remit the case back to FtT for rehearing.

Sasha171216

david235 said:

@Sasha171216 I'm a first time poster but some time lurker. I am a disabled person who has completed all but the last module of a law degree.

A legal decision is reached by making findings of fact then applying the law to those findings of fact. Appeals to the Upper Tribunal ("UT") must be on errors of law.

As has been said, the only way to get an informed opinion on whether there is an arguable case before the Upper Tribunal is to ask a suitably qualified person to review your Decision and Statement of Reasons ("SOR"). I join those who recommend that you get this advice. Whilst Legal Help has been eliminated from most stages of the benefits system, some Legal Help remains for appeals to the Upper Tribunal and the appellate courts; there is advice on this on Scope's page about the Upper Tribunal.

Most of the points you raise appear to be about the evidence that was before the First-tier Tribunal ("FtT") and the findings of fact FtT reached on that evidence. There is only an error of law if FtT could not legitimately have reached its finding on evidence - that is, the evidence is wholly incapable of supporting the finding being more likely correct than incorrect; in other words, the civil standard of proof has been incorrectly applied. In many cases there is more than one conclusion FtT could reach on a point, depending on how it weights the conflicting evidence before it; weighting the evidence in a way that is unfavourable to the claimant is unlikely to be an error of law.

You would have been sent the case bundle before your tribunal; if you did not raise an objection to something in that bundle then FtT was entitled to proceed on the basis that you agreed with the evidence on that point. This is relevant to the arthritis in your hands - the assessor found no sign of arthritis when he or she examined you, but you could have challenged that point using the X-ray evidence assuming the conclusions from that X-ray could apply to the day when the initial decision was reached. Reconsideration and Tribunals cannot consider matters arising after the initial decision, but can consider evidence dated after the initial decision if that evidence explains the situation on or before the day of the decision. Of course, whether you do or do not have arthritis is not the key issue for PIP - it is the effect of any problems with your hands on your ability to perform the PIP activities.

You seem to be trying to pick apart FtT's decision by finding every apparent discrepancy in the Decision, SOR and the underlying evidence. Unless an error changed or could have changed the decision, it is of no legal consequence; an inconsequential error of fact does not magically make the decision fall apart. It follows that an incorrect date in the SOR does not amount to an error of law unless it resulted in the decision being incorrect.

Every decision maker - be it a DWP decision maker or a Tribunal - makes their decision(s) based on the evidence before it. The decision maker must make their own independent decision by making findings of fact based on the evidence, then applying the law to those facts. If the decision maker gives up their independence in favour of someone else's opinion on what should be the correct decision then they have made an error of law known as fettering of discretion, which will be familiar to those who have studied the law surrounding judicial review. This explains why the decision maker sometimes reaches a different conclusion to the assessor - the assessor's scores are a recommendation to the decision maker based on the evidence, but the decision maker will review that evidence and must depart from the assessor's conclusion when they feel applying the law to the evidence requires a different conclusion. It follows from this that what the PIP self-test and the CAB say about your particular case are irrelevant to all decision makers, not just the Upper Tribunal.

The task you faced at FtT was the same that you faced at initial application and at Reconsideration - to show that you more likely than not met the legal tests for award of benefit. An application to UT is an appeal against the FtT's decision alleging one or more specific errors of law leading to an incorrect decision, not an opportunity to bombard the Tribunal with every error or discrepancy in FtT's decision. Bringing up errors that cannot change the decision unhelpfully draws attention away from those arguments that could change the decision. In any legal argument, working out what to leave out is almost as important as working out should go in.

Judges of the Upper Tribunal are experienced lawyers; I know one of the Deputy Judges (which means she is a part-time Judge) who makes some Social Security decisions and she is a barrister with decades of experience. "Safely / acceptable standard / repeatedly / reasonable time period" is a very well known part of Regulation 4 of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/377) (as amended). You probably do not need to establish this in any appeal, but if you want to mention this or any other area of the law, the Upper Tribunal is perhaps a level where it would be best to use correct legal citation. A Judge of the Upper Tribunal will attempt to be flexible and ensure full participation of all parties including an benefit claimant who is not legally represented - these things are, indeed, mandated by rule 2 of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698) (as amended). However, the Judge cannot go beyond that into making the claimant's case for them if their submission cannot be understood or is legally incorrect. Case law is particularly important to cite correctly - if the case cannot be identified, you risk any arguments based on it being rejected.

The Upper Tribunal can be very slow - it can take a year for the Upper Tribunal to reach its decision. Successful cases in the Upper Tribunal are often sent back to the First-tier Tribunal with directions for rehearing. At this stage, it can make sense to make a fresh application for benefit to deal with the time from the date of your new claim onwards. Any appeal will then be concerned solely with the time up to your fresh claim. There are advantages and disadvantages in making a new claim - as the Scope page on the Upper Tribunal says, this is a matter where you should take advice about your individual circumstances.

quote "Of course, whether you do or do not have arthritis is not the key issue for PIP - it is the effect of any problems with your hands on your ability to perform the PIP activities." -

Of course I have Arthritis -diagnosed by gp;s and Xrays, Exactly-PIP is what I cannot do.- could nto do my job due to my arthritis (and Raynauds) and lost it in 1998,-I cant hold anything in my hands -they are swollen -Xray stated that.And they are deformed-it is blatantly obvious.It is the HP from IAS that is lying.They disregarded letters from GP's/consultants ,Everything I have/cannot do was accepted for DLA/IB?ESA.I have a carer prepares my meals ,washes my hair ,washes my back,checks my medication,,i use aids to dress, wash,eating and drinking,manage meds,manage toilet needs,get about which were all shown to her but not all listed in the report
have jsut had second claim rejected based on the lies of the HP,I went thru the report and could not believe what i was reading,It is known they lie there way so as not to award PIP,,and their "movements" they ask to do are a farce,The MS/CNS report is fake,It is standard text they copy into every report,the one i have just got was exact word fort word of the one in 2017.How do you explain that?I not only have Arthritis and Raynauds but Fibromyalgia,Costochondritis,Scoliosis,thyroid cyst,kidney cyst,dysphagia Oesophegeal Dysmotility, gastritis,duodenitis diverticulitis,and other symptoms as yet undiagnosed -but confirmed by two gp's and two consultants.
fro every actiivity the HP wrote "on PIP" form she claims she cannot do........ and for every thing i cannot do -the HP said there was no reason to suggest she cannot do the activity,she lied about seeing me walk with my stick-claimed I held my stick in my right hsnd when i hold it in m y left hand because myn left knee is the problem knee,.
she said the pain was in my right knee and thast was the only symptom of fibrimyalgia -total fiction/lies/assumptions,She also stated that i had had two house fires and several pan fires through forgetting pans are on the hob and not turning the oven off.-canniot use an oven/hob reliably or safely-only cook/heat up meals in microwave-.
not only arthritis but back pain prevent actiivity,I scored 28 and 22 on the PIP test -done by the CAB and my advocate.
/

poppy123456

When you claimed again, did you use the same evidence you previously used? or did you send different evidence in to support your claim? Using the same evidence will very likely see you being refused again and again.

PIP and DLA are different, they have different criteria. ESA is also different, with different criteria.

It's very easy to score yourself highly when using the PIP self self, even though CAB did the test with you. Unless you have a very good understanding of the PIP descriptors and what they mean, the PIP self test isn't helpful.

The best guide to read for a better understanding is this one. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/personal-independence-payment-assessment-guide-for-assessment-providers/pip-assessment-guide-part-2-the-assessment-criteria#daily-living-activities

Jurph

I think @david235 is reminding you @Sasha171216 that PIP is all about the set descriptors rather than diagnosis.

davedj44

Hi everyone, I have really been through it over the last couple of years as many of you out there have. On the 13th of June this year after exactly 52 weeks of waiting, I finally got my appeal heard at a tribunal. In my case it was a worse experience than the original assessment I then found out they ruled against me and I lost. After a short period of not knowing what to do, I made an appointment with my local mp. It so far has been the best thing I did, she contacted a group called Raise, and they contacted me. I explained what had happened, I had requested a statement of reasons from the courts. They arrived after 2 months. I was asked to send copies to the guy helping me with my case. He read through them and pinpointed a number of issues, something I would not had a clue about myself. He put together all the things he found and sent them to the court. I was told what normally happens is that it then usually goes to an upper tribunal which can take months, then depending on that, several months for another tribunal. Drawing from my recent experience with the whole prices I expected the worst and was prepared for a possible 14 month wait. To my surprise the district judge ruled that I did not need to go through the upper tribunal, the original decision was cancelled and that I should let them know any days in the near future I wasn't available, so a new hearing can be arranged as soon as possible. I received a letter outlining several things that were unlawful about the first tribunal. I know its not over, but at least I have the original decision cancelled and I will have the guy from Raise with me when I go back. If it wssnt for my mp putting me in touch with Raise and for them really knowing the law, I can't honestly say I know what situation I'd be in. I will update you on what happens, fingers crossed it will be a more positive outcome than the last. I hope anyone who ihas gone through my experience with losing the appeal and doesn't know what to do with the statement of reason request, will get some help from my post

Adrian_Scope

Hello @davedj44. It's great your MP has been able to help and it sounds like Raise are really supporting you with this. I'll be keeping everything crossed for your new tribunal. Please let us know how things progress!