PIP, DLA and AA
If this is your first visit, check out the community guide. You will have to Join us or Sign in before you can post.

PIP Issues

Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
Hi 

I applied for PIP in February 2018. 

Due to various issues with me filling out forms and assessments been cancelled. 

I finally had my phone assessment on 14th April 2020. 

After the assessment I was not happy with the phone call, I was concerned the person wasn't listening and had misheard me on things.

Due to issues with me being ill I never filled out my book or provided further evidence such as medical reports. 

After the phone call on the 14th April, I rang the DWP and said I would still like to present my book and evidence, they said that was fine and they would put a note on my file. 

They told me very clearly that my PIP would not be assessed until I had provided my book or further evidence. 

They sent me an envelope which I only received a few days. 

I received a letter today, dated 21st April, with the outcome to my PIP assessment. I failed. 

Shock the person failed to write in the report half the stuff I said and the report isn't a true reflection on the call and what was discussed.

What is the best way to move forward? 

Clearly the DWP lied, they told me in a very clear and straightforward way they would wait for my evidence before reviewing my account. 

I don't think I had even received my envelope by the time they posted the outcome. 

Thanks
James 

Replies

  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    I have just spent over an hour on the phone to PIP trying to get help. 

    Their phone service is so difficult to use, I have autism so struggle with communication. I am left feeling so update. 

    The call centre advisor told me that nothing can be done other than a mandatory consideration. 

    Then I spoke a case manager who said because it was their fault, they can review it again before it goes to a mandatory consideration. 

    So I am not sure what is happening, as every person I spoke to has said something different. 


  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,914 Disability Gamechanger
    They had no obligation to wait for your evidence but they’re correct. There’s nothing to stop them looking again.
  • charlotte441charlotte441 Member Posts: 45 Connected
    @Jamesd49 they do lie and don’t write half the stuff down I agree! they just don’t expect you to go in for a MR or a appeal ..... just don’t give up! three people I no was going to go to tribunal the DWP contacted two of them to say they have been awarded it a few days before there appeal hearing and the third person went and it went in her favour and she got 10.6K backdated as it went in her favour. but that’s not the case for everyone. so be mindful. good luck 
  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    They had no obligation to wait for your evidence but they’re correct. There’s nothing to stop them looking again.
    Surly they do, when they told me in a very clear way - we will not look at your claim till you provide all the evidence. You would sort of expect them do that. 
  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    @Jamesd49 they do lie and don’t write half the stuff down I agree! they just don’t expect you to go in for a MR or a appeal ..... just don’t give up! three people I no was going to go to tribunal the DWP contacted two of them to say they have been awarded it a few days before there appeal hearing and the third person went and it went in her favour and she got 10.6K backdated as it went in her favour. but that’s not the case for everyone. so be mindful. good luck 
    Thank you, I am UC and have had no end of their lies, been sworn at down the phone and all sorts. 

    I told them I was concerned about having a phone interview as I struggle, hence why as soon as the call ended I rang up the DWP and said I wanted to present extra evidence and they said no worries we will wait for your evidence and then look. 

    Clearly they didn't. 

    For me I got told two different bits of info today, how am I meant to know who to trust within the DWP/PIP. Surly everybody should be on the same page. 
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,914 Disability Gamechanger
    Jamesd49 said:
    They had no obligation to wait for your evidence but they’re correct. There’s nothing to stop them looking again.
    Surly they do, when they told me in a very clear way - we will not look at your claim till you provide all the evidence. You would sort of expect them do that. 
    You spoke to someone in a call centre. It’s highly likely they don’t even work for DWP. There’s a legal principle that nothing said by another can bind a decision maker. It’s been the case since at least 1966 so, yes, they are correct. The decision maker absolutely was not bound to wait for anything. 
  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    Jamesd49 said:
    They had no obligation to wait for your evidence but they’re correct. There’s nothing to stop them looking again.
    Surly they do, when they told me in a very clear way - we will not look at your claim till you provide all the evidence. You would sort of expect them do that. 
    You spoke to someone in a call centre. It’s highly likely they don’t even work for DWP. There’s a legal principle that nothing said by another can bind a decision maker. It’s been the case since at least 1966 so, yes, they are correct. The decision maker absolutely was not bound to wait for anything. 
    Well I rang the DWP PIP number, so I would hope to speak to somebody within the DWP. 

    I am really not sure why your commenting? You just seem to be criticising everything I say and not actually offering any advice or anything 
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,914 Disability Gamechanger
    edited April 2020
    Jamesd49 said

    Well I rang the DWP PIP number, so I would hope to speak to somebody within the DWP. 

    I am really not sure why your commenting? You just seem to be criticising everything I say and not actually offering any advice or anything 
    There are 2 levels within DWP call responses - 1 and 2. Level 1 is outsourced whilst level 2 generally isn’t. So, for example, if you were on DLA and had to make a call to start a claim for PIP your call could be to PIP or a company acting on behalf of PIP. Same with the Pension Service. Some calls are taken in house and some are not. It’s been this way for around 20 years or more. They won’t tell you which they are because they don’t consider it relevant. There are occasionally ways to tell but only occasionally. 

    I’m commenting because you asked if they could do what they did and what the best way forward is. I’ve answered both those points - yes they can, and, the best way forward is a further challenge.

    After that then it was actually you who asked me further questions and challenged me. So, I’ve answered those too. 
  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    Anybody else got any advice for my PIP issues 
  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    Anybody else got any advice for my PIP issues 
  • chiariedschiarieds Member Posts: 7,884 Disability Gamechanger
    Hi @Jamesd49 - I'm sorry to read about the problems that you've had, & the mixed messages you've received when ringing. As you have only got 1 month, usually, from the date on your PIP decision letter in which to apply for a Mandatory Reconsideration, perhaps go with that. This would be best done in writing, so long as you put your name & NI number on each sheet. It might be easier for you to explain the difficulties you face this way, as you said you struggled with talking on the phone.
    Concentrate on any activities you have problems with detailing why, & give a couple of examples (at the time of your assessment) saying what happened, how did you feel at the time/afterwards; could you do the activity safely, or if you just couldn't do it. Have a look at the following link which shows the different activities (descriptors), & the points that may be gained.
    For many this is just something that has to be completed before facing a tribunal, as less than 1 in 5 are successful. The outcome with tribunals is much more favourable.
    Hope some of this helps. :)

  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    chiarieds said:
    Hi @Jamesd49 - I'm sorry to read about the problems that you've had, & the mixed messages you've received when ringing. As you have only got 1 month, usually, from the date on your PIP decision letter in which to apply for a Mandatory Reconsideration, perhaps go with that. This would be best done in writing, so long as you put your name & NI number on each sheet. It might be easier for you to explain the difficulties you face this way, as you said you struggled with talking on the phone.
    Concentrate on any activities you have problems with detailing why, & give a couple of examples (at the time of your assessment) saying what happened, how did you feel at the time/afterwards; could you do the activity safely, or if you just couldn't do it. Have a look at the following link which shows the different activities (descriptors), & the points that may be gained.
    For many this is just something that has to be completed before facing a tribunal, as less than 1 in 5 are successful. The outcome with tribunals is much more favourable.
    Hope some of this helps. :)

    Thanks for your reply. I am not doing a MR first, they are reviewing it again then I can do a MR if needed. 

    Thanks 
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,914 Disability Gamechanger
    If they’re reviewing it again then that effectively is an MR. That’s important to know because, if needs be, it means you could go straight to appeal if you wished. However, you can do as many MRs as you want. Unfortunately the success rate for an MR remains at 16%.
  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    If they’re reviewing it again then that effectively is an MR. That’s important to know because, if needs be, it means you could go straight to appeal if you wished. However, you can do as many MRs as you want. Unfortunately the success rate for an MR remains at 16%.
    Well it's not a MR Mike. Because of their error they are reviewing it again with my book. 

    No you can't it's only one MR. 

    Then an MR then I can go to tribunal if need to. 
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,914 Disability Gamechanger
    I’m sorry but that’s wholly incorrect. No. matter who initiates it any review which takes place within a month of the original decision is an MR. If you look at the legislation you’ll find no reference to MR because legally it’s just an any grounds revision. If you look at that same legislation you will find nothing within it which restricts you to one bite of the cherry. This is especially important because of course you can do a late MR up to 13 months after the original decision. 

    Feel free to look at the original legislation at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/381/contents/made

    You’ll see no mention of MR, just any grounds revision. You’ll also see nothing which it’s only an MR if you do it - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/381/regulation/5/made  could not be more explicit on the point - and nothing which limits you to one go. 




  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    I’m sorry but that’s wholly incorrect. No. matter who initiates it any review which takes place within a month of the original decision is an MR. If you look at the legislation you’ll find no reference to MR because legally it’s just an any grounds revision. If you look at that same legislation you will find nothing within it which restricts you to one bite of the cherry. This is especially important because of course you can do a late MR up to 13 months after the original decision. 

    Feel free to look at the original legislation at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/381/contents/made

    You’ll see no mention of MR, just any grounds revision. You’ll also see nothing which it’s only an MR if you do it - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/381/regulation/5/made  could not be more explicit on the point - and nothing which limits you to one go. 




    Once again your wrong, I read another thread today about PIP which you was wrong in and somebody corrected you and you was adamant you was right when you wasn't. Clearly you don't understand the rules and your telling people the wrong info. 

    I have three stages to my appeal - 
    1 - A review because they made a mistake
    2 - A MR
    3 - A tribunal. 

    You can only have one MR. 
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,914 Disability Gamechanger
    Sorry @Jamesd49 I don’t wish to cause you any distress but I’m quite comfortable holding my ground on this. I’ve posted a link to the law. I work with social security law every day of my working life. You are absolutely welcome to point out where the law says I am wrong.

    Your case is being reviewed under 5(1)(a) of the above regs i.e. a review initiated by the Secretary of State. It’s an MR. Regardless, you have a right to a review under 5(1)(b) which is also an MR. 

    You can go do as many MRs as you want as the legislation does nothing to prevent that. 

    Once the Secretary of State has done their MR you can go straight to appeal if you wish without doing a further MR. This is clearly allowed by 7(1)(b) - see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/381/regulation/7/made

    As regards other threads I’ve no idea which one you’re talking about. 
  • chiariedschiarieds Member Posts: 7,884 Disability Gamechanger
    Whilst I would wish your comments to be correct about this, as you'd been given conflicting 'advice' recently when you rang, I can only endorse that asking for your claim to be looked at again likely 'triggers' a MR.
    Case managers do sometimes ask more questions, I personally found, to find out more about an initial claim. In my case, I had to go to another assessment, & go through it all again soon after. If this isn't the case, then, as @mikehughescq has said, you're most likely to be at the MR stage. Altho I don't have his knowledge, my response earlier today was because I also thought you'd be going down the MR route.
    No-one probably 'gets it right' all of the time on such a forum as this, as everyone's situation is different, which is why members are often advised to seek local advice, etc. On the balance of probabilities, I would very much doubt mikehughes has given you incorrect advice.
    You could ring the PIP enquiry line to confirm what stage you're at perhaps.
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,914 Disability Gamechanger
    LOL. On the “balance of probabilities” it’s spelt out unequivocally in the links to the legislation I posted. DWP won’t call it an MR but that dues to mean it isn’t. 
  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    Sorry @Jamesd49 I don’t wish to cause you any distress but I’m quite comfortable holding my ground on this. I’ve posted a link to the law. I work with social security law every day of my working life. You are absolutely welcome to point out where the law says I am wrong.

    Your case is being reviewed under 5(1)(a) of the above regs i.e. a review initiated by the Secretary of State. It’s an MR. Regardless, you have a right to a review under 5(1)(b) which is also an MR. 

    You can go do as many MRs as you want as the legislation does nothing to prevent that. 

    Once the Secretary of State has done their MR you can go straight to appeal if you wish without doing a further MR. This is clearly allowed by 7(1)(b) - see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/381/regulation/7/made

    As regards other threads I’ve no idea which one you’re talking about. 
    Once again your wrong, I believe you do it on purpose to annoy and wind people up. 

    I feel bad for who you work with and your clients. 

    No you can't, I have checked numerous websites and they all say 1 MR. So I would trust them over you. 

    I can easily find this thread where you was telling people the wrong info 
  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    chiarieds said:
    Whilst I would wish your comments to be correct about this, as you'd been given conflicting 'advice' recently when you rang, I can only endorse that asking for your claim to be looked at again likely 'triggers' a MR.
    Case managers do sometimes ask more questions, I personally found, to find out more about an initial claim. In my case, I had to go to another assessment, & go through it all again soon after. If this isn't the case, then, as @mikehughescq has said, you're most likely to be at the MR stage. Altho I don't have his knowledge, my response earlier today was because I also thought you'd be going down the MR route.
    No-one probably 'gets it right' all of the time on such a forum as this, as everyone's situation is different, which is why members are often advised to seek local advice, etc. On the balance of probabilities, I would very much doubt mikehughes has given you incorrect advice.
    You could ring the PIP enquiry line to confirm what stage you're at perhaps.
    I haven't been conflicting advice. The woman at the DWP told me what would happen and how it works. 

    So it's recorded on the call what she said would happen, so if they change their mind on how they will do it then they can listen to the call and follow how I was told it would work. One of the DWP rules is - do what we say we will do. 

    I am having it reviewed before the MR because they made a mistake. 

    I have been told that I get a review, MR then tribunal. 

    I will ring them Tuesday, but as I said above they confirmed it on the phone to me 
  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    LOL. On the “balance of probabilities” it’s spelt out unequivocally in the links to the legislation I posted. DWP won’t call it an MR but that dues to mean it isn’t. 
    Once again your wrong. I think I will be speaking to admin about you lying to people on this forum 
  • chiariedschiarieds Member Posts: 7,884 Disability Gamechanger
    edited May 2020
    Hmmm....I was trying to be diplomatic, as well as showing empathy for the OP. I appreciate your posts, & whilst you're correct as usual, you might try to not be so abrupt, nor abrasive with someone agreeing with you, nor take offense where none was intended. You might also edit your posts to check your spelling, so your intent is clear.
  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    chiarieds said:
    Hmmm....I was trying to be diplomatic, as well as showing empathy for the OP. I appreciate your posts, & whilst you're correct as usual, you might try to not be so abrupt, nor abrasive with someone agreeing with you, nor take offense where none was intended. You might also edit your posts to check your spelling, so your intent is clear.
    The point of your post was?

    I come to scope for help with an issue, I got wrong information and treated poorly, not the best experience. 
  • chiariedschiarieds Member Posts: 7,884 Disability Gamechanger
    Sorry @Jamesd49 - Was just trying to say that I have empathy with your situation, & whilst mike is usually correct in these matters, I appreciate your point of view. Whilst I'm not the best person to advise, I do try to help in the forum. I'm sorry you feel that you've had a poor experience here. My comment was about mike; however much he knows, perhaps he came across poorly. That's why I also took issue with him.
    Scope really tries to help everyone; I'm sorry you feel your experience so poor. This community is here to help all people with a disability. Please don't judge it by recent responses; no-one thinks they've given you wrong info, & I'm very sorry if you feel it a bad experience; that certainly was not my own intent. I wish you all the best.
  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    chiarieds said:
    Sorry @Jamesd49 - Was just trying to say that I have empathy with your situation, & whilst mike is usually correct in these matters, I appreciate your point of view. Whilst I'm not the best person to advise, I do try to help in the forum. I'm sorry you feel that you've had a poor experience here. My comment was about mike; however much he knows, perhaps he came across poorly. That's why I also took issue with him.
    Scope really tries to help everyone; I'm sorry you feel your experience so poor. This community is here to help all people with a disability. Please don't judge it by recent responses; no-one thinks they've given you wrong info, & I'm very sorry if you feel it a bad experience; that certainly was not my own intent. I wish you all the best.

    Thanks for the reply. 
    My only issue has been with Mike, not you. 

    The community hasn't helped me, just one member speaking in a poor and rude tone. 

    I doubt I will post again or even come back. Thats how bad its been 
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,914 Disability Gamechanger
    chiarieds said:
    Hmmm....I was trying to be diplomatic, as well as showing empathy for the OP. I appreciate your posts, & whilst you're correct as usual, you might try to not be so abrupt, nor abrasive with someone agreeing with you, nor take offense where none was intended. You might also edit your posts to check your spelling, so your intent is clear.
    @Jamesd49 is of course welcome to report me and indeed to select the ignore option. I’m sorry he doesn’t like my answers. I have reviewed my posts and I’m satisfied that he challenged the accuracy of my answers from the off. He came for advice and remains disappointed that mine have been the main responses and they don’t chime with what DWP have told him. I have nothing to add in respect of that.

    As regards the point I’ve put in bold above I will make one point and try to be as diplomatic as I can. 

    I have Nystagmus. Thus my eyes can never fixate on an object. That would include things like words. They merely scan it. I focus as best I can. When I make spelling errors my ability to spot them is limited by the above. The nature of Nystagmus - it gets worse with tiredness or stress - means that if I look back for those mistakes then the harder I look the less likely I am to find them. 

    I sincerely hope it’s not an observation you make about anyone else’s posts given the range of likely reading, neurological or vision impairments on a forum like this. 
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,914 Disability Gamechanger
    Jamesd49 said:
    LOL. On the “balance of probabilities” it’s spelt out unequivocally in the links to the legislation I posted. DWP won’t call it an MR but that dues to mean it isn’t. 
    Once again your wrong. I think I will be speaking to admin about you lying to people on this forum 
    This response was addressed to @chiarieds not you @Jamesd49. However, I will politely ask you to refrain from calling anyone a liar. You are welcome to disagree with me but my posts have never included lies.
  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    Jamesd49 said:
    LOL. On the “balance of probabilities” it’s spelt out unequivocally in the links to the legislation I posted. DWP won’t call it an MR but that dues to mean it isn’t. 
    Once again your wrong. I think I will be speaking to admin about you lying to people on this forum 
    This response was addressed to @chiarieds not you @Jamesd49. However, I will politely ask you to refrain from calling anyone a liar. You are welcome to disagree with me but my posts have never included lies.
    But you are one, you have told me the wrong thing numerous times in this thread and in other thread and when people challenge you on it, you get defensive and rude
  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    I am still after some help about my original issues, so far not received any other than from @chiarieds]

    Thanks 
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,914 Disability Gamechanger
    @Jamesd49 with all due respect, calling someone a liar is defensive and rude. I have not called anyone names. 

    The reason no-one else has answered your original question could be for many reasons but it could be because it’s been answered. 

    For the purposes of clarity DWP are doing an MR. They may not call it that but that’s what it is. Once they’re done you may, hopefully have no further issue with your benefit but, if you do, you have the choice of doing a further MR or going straight to appeal. 

    I sincerely doubt anyone is going to give you a different answer. They may offer their opinion on which of those 2 options you choose but they’re not going to tell you there’s only 1 option or a 3rd one. 
  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    I am still after some help about my original issues. 

    Thanks 
  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    I am disappointed I keep get giving wrong info on this forum, such as multiple MR's can be done, when that isn't true.
  • chiariedschiarieds Member Posts: 7,884 Disability Gamechanger
    @mikehughescq - My apologies. I have bilateral nystagmus, but at the extremes of my lateral vision.
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,914 Disability Gamechanger
    chiarieds said:
    @mikehughescq - My apologies. I have bilateral nystagmus, but at the extremes of my lateral vision.
    That’s okay. I had guessed that might be the case from the first half of your user name. I could be wrong of course. 
  • chiariedschiarieds Member Posts: 7,884 Disability Gamechanger
    Thank you. Chiari 1 Malformation + Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome = Chiarieds
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,914 Disability Gamechanger
    chiarieds said:
    Thank you. Chiari 1 Malformation + Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome = Chiarieds
    Doh. Yeah the second half was obvious too. I just knew the link between Chiari and Nystagmus because I do some patient educator stuff with second year medical students and one of my fellow patients has Chiari with no Nystagmus so was interested in my having something that they could have had but didn’t. 
  • fatherinpainfatherinpain Member Posts: 177 Courageous
    @mikehughescq, what is it that you do if you don’t mind answering?
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,914 Disability Gamechanger
    I’ll let others answer that on this occasion given the fractious nature of the thread. 
  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    I’ll let others answer that on this occasion given the fractious nature of the thread. 
    His job is to misinform people 
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,914 Disability Gamechanger
    Regrettably this is probably the largest number of posts I’ve ever had to report as abuse on one thread on any of the few fora of which I’m a member.  
  • Jamesd49Jamesd49 Member Posts: 77 Listener
    Regrettably this is probably the largest number of posts I’ve ever had to report as abuse on one thread on any of the few fora of which I’m a member.  
    How is it abuse? It's factually true, everything I said is. 

    Its such a shame your too narrow minded to see it and you get abusive towards me when you realise your in the wrong, 

    The experience of this thread and dealing with your errors, attitude has put me of for life 
  • Adrian_ScopeAdrian_Scope Testing team Posts: 7,923

    Scope community team

    edited June 2020
    This thread has been closed. Please remember to remain civil in future discussions. We encourage open debate, but please remember to comment on the post rather than the poster.
    Senior Community Partner
    Scope

    Your feedback is really important to the development of the online community, so please remember to complete our online community annual survey
This discussion has been closed.