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.

Today received Statement of Reasons

rbz

Finally after 23 weeks waiting received Statement of reasons.
During Tribunal hearing I asked repeat almost every question, and some questions asked repeat 2 or more times, but Statement of reasons contains information, that I asked repeat just ONE question.
By this reason I not awarded points for Washing and Bathe, because they assumed I can hear smoke alarms and etc.
Please advice how to work with complete wrong statement - 'Just once asked repeat question during Appeal Hearing'.
My case go to Upper tribunal, because of many important things not taken into account during Tribunal Hearing.
Can't believe that Tribunal members are liars.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

janer1967

Hi @rbz Welcome to the community, I am sorry to hear about your tribunal experience and statement of reasons Im sorry but I dont really have any experience of upper tribunal process but Im sure there are people on here who can advise . I don't understand though how not being able to hear alarms would give points for washing and bathing (but I could be wrong). Good luck with your case and hope someone can give you more detailed advice

skullcap

With severe hearing loss in both ears you would be expected to have been prescribed two hearing aids. Having one such aids gets you no points.
In addition there are many aids and adaptions that you could buy that would get round the problem of not hearing the telephone, door bell or even the smoke alarm. All such aids provide for a flashing light in the room(s). They are easy to fit and inexpensive to buy. Claiming that you cannot bathe alone just in case you can't hear the smoke alarm will be met with the challenge to get one of these aids fitted.

rbz

@skullcap Judge assumed that I MUST HEAR smoke alarms when wash and bathe, because during Tribunal hearing I asked repeat just 1 question. And there no evidences. Whish is nonsense, because during tribunal I asked repeat most questions and some questions asked repeat 2 - 3 times. Also my medical records clear state moderate to severe hearing loss.

skullcap

rbz said:

@skullcap Judge assumed that I MUST HEAR smoke alarms when wash and bathe, because during Tribunal hearing I asked repeat just 1 question. And there no evidences. Whish is nonsense, because during tribunal I asked repeat most questions and some questions asked repeat 2 - 3 times. Also my medical records clear state moderate to severe hearing loss.

That is as maybe but given the audio assessment you would have had to confirm severe deafness you should have been sent a letter telling you of the findings and to make another appointment at the hospital audio to have two hearing aids tuned and fitted for you. They did with me. Are you saying that even with both aids you could not hear or clearly understand what was being said at the tribunal? If not and despite you pointing out to them in not hearing properly the Tribunal would be wondering as to why then were you not wearing the aids. Simply asking them to repeat themselves would not be suitable evidence to show severe deafness.

rbz

Tribunal ignored everything who can give points. I awarded only 2 points for communication, even I can't understand complex verbal information. During communication I always use lipreading, but Statement of reasons not contain any information about lipreading.
Hearing aid not helpful for me, because noises distract me and I can't concentrate during conversation.

skullcap

rbz said:

Tribunal ignored everything who can give points. I awarded only 2 points for communication, even I can't understand complex verbal information. During communication I always use lipreading, but Statement of reasons not contain any information about lipreading.
Hearing aid not helpful for me, because noises distract me and I can't concentrate during conversation.

The reason that lipreading was not considered is because it is not a system that is accepted by the DWP.
Signing is so that should be used instead.
If you cannot hear properly through the two prescribed hearing aids then you should go back to the provider and have them tuned accordingly.
With my two I have three different settings which I adjust to the circumstances at the time. They were provided by the Audio Dept at the hospital.

cristobal

@ilovecats - I did wonder how this is assessed.

Thinking logically if you check round the house to make sure you've not left a pan on the gas etc beforehand, the chances of the house catching fire whilst you are in the shower seems to be millions to one...

rbz

@cristobal
During showering everyone must remove hearing aids. Also there not only fire risk, but these are some other problem.like someone can enter house and etc.
Also person with hearing loss can't safe cross road - there also very low chance if vehicle hit person.

At this moment big problem with interpretations - one person awarded points for some activities, but another person not awarded even both persons have absolute same problems during daily living.
In my case Tribunal stated that I asked repeat just 1 question, but really during hearing I asked repeat most questions.
Under every activity they stated - no evidence, because my GP not included into medical records about problems with daily living.
Tribunal panel members was advised that there no time to discus about daily living problems, because 10 minute appointment too short. During appointment we discuss about health problem and treatment.
My GP know about problems during my daily living, but I don't know why information not available on my medical records. Maybe GP decide that this information not important.

Now preparing papers for leave to appeal to Social Security Commissioner, because found errors in law under each description.
Plenty wrong information like:'He was issued with hearing aid for both ears' - I never had hearing aids for both ears. Tribunal fully ignored medical records from ENT and Physiotherapy.
Hope next week all papers ready for posting.

poppy123456

It's not their responsibility to prove you qualify, it's yours. You should have provided that evidence to them. It's very rare that a GP will know how your conditions affect you against the PIP descriptors.

When i'm at home, i will always lock my front and back door, this way no one can enter, even if i didn't, when i'm in the shower i definitely wouldn't leave my door unlocked because i wouldn't hear them if i'm in the shower and i don't have a hearing problem. I'm sure most people would hear much when they are in the shower.

For a Tribunal you need to prepare your case before the hearing takes place not leave it for the day of the hearing so that you can discuss what descriptors apply to you.

A poorly presented case often leads to refusal and this could have been what happened here.

rbz

@poppy123456

My Representative from local Citizens Advice Bureau not suggested which information useful and which information useless during Tribunal hearing.
Now with extra evidence preparing for further Appeals Tribunal.

poppy123456

That isn't an error in law. If that was me and i'm refused next time then i'd be finding myself a different representative. Sounds like they didn't do what they should have done and could have cost you an award because of a poorly presented case.

rbz

@poppy123456
When wrote 'ERROR IN LAW' I keep in mind content from Statement of reason.
SOR stated - I ask repeat only one question, but during hearing I asked to repeat almost every question. My wife can confirm that.
Tribunal not considered any medical records from ENT and Physiotherapy, and decision based only on medical records from GP which not contain all information.
Medical records from ENT and Physiotherapy contains much more information especially if I bypass my GP when visit audiology department.

skullcap

Thanks and I will take it on the chin.
I would also mention in passing that I too have to wear both hearing aids and even with wearing them they pick up far too much background noise.
In my claim I never considered even thinking about the descriptors other than 7b which gave me 2 points.
Based on what you are saying there would have been up to another 10 points that should have been given. Obviously I did not read that they would/could apply. I just claimed that I needed aids. This clearly highlights that not everyone is qualified in completing the PIP2 form. Maybe the DWP should well remember this and offer these points that are missed.

cristobal

@Username_removed.

I’m reluctant to disagree as your posts are always incredibly useful and informative but there’s a misunderstanding here which does need to be corrected. You say,

“The law, case law and guidance are very clear that when assessing risk you’re not assessing whether or not something is more or less likely than something else. You’re assessing the consequences if it were to do so.”

This is wrong and you are confusing two different things which are both important.

You should be assessing both ‘risk’ - how likely something is to happen, and ‘hazard’ - how likely something is to cause harm to someone. You are only considering the ‘hazard’ (and @ilovecats was only considering ‘risk’)

In this case 'risk' of a house catching fire is the same whether impaired or unimpaired. A person who cannot hear a smoke alarm is more likely to be at an increased risk from the 'hazard' (because they may have less time to evacuate)

Before taking a bath you should check round to see if you can reduce hazard and risk. Have you left a pan on the stove? If you have an open fire use a fireguard. Have you been ironing,or using the tumble drier? If so check that they are switched off. There are many more.

You have reduced the ‘risk’ i.e. how likely there is to be a fire.

However you can still reduce the ‘hazard.’ (Here there are some extra things that an impaired person might routinely consider) Close all of the doors. You may consider leaving the bathroom door open and, if possible, facing towards the door whilst in the bath. If the house does catch fire in the time you’re in the bath you may see smoke and be able to evacuate. Or close the door and await rescue. Check that you are able to open the window easily and it’s not locked! Take a phone with you when using the bathroom.

My opinion, and you may disagree, is that having taken steps to reduce risk/ hazard you are perfectly safe to take a bath. In fact you may even be safer than someone who isn’t impaired and didn’t take steps to manage hazard.

Houses don’t suffer spontaneous combustion (!) and even if they did the chance of it happening whilst you choose to take a bath are several millions to one. To use your phrase “the ‘risk’ is so remote as to be non-existent”

Your other example about a pan boiling over also isn't a good one for the reasons above.

rbz

@Username_removed
I already received Statement of reasons and Records of proceedings
Under most descriptions Judge pointed that medical records from GP not indicate any problems during my daily living.
Judge was advised that during 10 minutes appointment I and doctor talking about leg pain and there no time to discuss about difficulties during daily living (like difficulties with dress/undress lowerbody, difficulties when preparing food and etc).
Judge also pointed that CAPITA PIP Assessment report not contains information about these difficulties. Judge was advised that PIP Assessment report contains errors and there missing some information. At this moment Independent Case Examiner investigate DWP/CAPITA maladministration.

If talk about hearing loss and activity 'Wash and bathe' judge decided that i MUST hear smoke detectors, because during Tribunal Hearing I ask repeat only ONE question.
Really during hearing I ask repeat almost every question 2 - 4 times.

Record of proceedings not reflect all situation, because some questions/answers not show.
For example there not printed when Judge asked how he should talk, slowly or loud (because of my hearing loss), I ask speak slowly, because then I can use lipread. Also there missing some other questions/answers.

rbz

Statement of reasons shows:
"Small moderate to severe hearing loss" - which is nonsense and judge have no clue about hearing loss levels.
Also stated "Have hearing aids for both ears."
I always used only one hearing aid. Never had aids for both ears.
Judge not checked my medical records where everything printed. He just take facts from incorrect Capita PIP assessment records.

cristobal

@Username_removed

I will bow to you superior knowledge in this area, and read the case law with interest.

I think there might be some confusion over the various terms - the health and safety term is 'hazard' but you choose to call it 'consequences', as in "consequences potentially deadly". It's the same thing (I think!) - without a hazard or 'consequences' any activity is perfectly safe. That's why, in relation to the child running into the road, it is a lot safer where I live. Quiet country lane = low hazard. The 'risk' is exactly the same but overall it's safer.

Case law is all very well but I also, in my opinion, useful to know what the DWP's take on these things is so here's a link to a document regarding the assessment of 'safety' which you and everyone may find interesting. I can't guarantee that's it's current unfortunately.

http://https//assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/718722/adm15-18.pdf

I still disagree about the fire risk - if I were in those circumstances I would quite happily take a bath without feeling unsafe at all.

As always Mike it has been a pleasure...