If this is your first visit, check out the community guide. You will have to Join us or Sign in before you can post.
Recorded f2f
Broken
Member Posts: 40 Courageous
Is there a "rule" stopping claimants from using two identical recording devises simultaneously?
(As opposed to one devise that can do two recordings) .
How many claimants have successfully recorded and been able to use these recordings as evidence in any dispute regarding what was actually said and what was written on the form by the assessor?
Have claimants actually asked for written/documented etc proof of the HP job title/health profession? Are they still using retired doctors as HP? IMO a retired doctor is unlikely to have current knowledge or expertise on some of the conditions (such as Fibromyalgia for example) if they have been retired for many years.
(As opposed to one devise that can do two recordings) .
How many claimants have successfully recorded and been able to use these recordings as evidence in any dispute regarding what was actually said and what was written on the form by the assessor?
Have claimants actually asked for written/documented etc proof of the HP job title/health profession? Are they still using retired doctors as HP? IMO a retired doctor is unlikely to have current knowledge or expertise on some of the conditions (such as Fibromyalgia for example) if they have been retired for many years.
Replies
A PIP assessment is not a medical it is a test of functinality HCP's do not have to have any specialist knowledge
CR
Para 1.6.56 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/655611/pip-assessment-guide-part-1-assessment-process.pdf
The key bit is that recording is not part of the specification so, whilst you can, the provider can in theory just say no. Rather than look bad they impose an excess of conditions, albeit that most are sensible re: notice; two recordings etc.
You could take 2 cassette recorders but you'd need 2 mains leads and a block or extension because you won't know if they have 2 sockets available or whether they are appropriately located to record clearly. You could use batteries but the risks there are obvious. A recording which ends part way through would have much reduced credibility.
There are no figures on how many precisely because it's done by a private company and it's not obligated as part of the contract. You can ask for the persons profession and their registration number and check this online.
My personal view is that much of these activities are a misdirection of your time. You can have a written copy of the HCP report and almost all will contain obvious factual errors which are easy enough to disprove. A recording may well highlight something outrageous but proving a HCP recorded inaccurate information in itself does not get you PIP.
Far better to focus on which points you score; why and what your specific evidence is for each functional activity. Your comments on the HCP will be largely ignored at the MR stage, even if you have successfully complained about them by then (which is unlikely time wise) so it only comes into play at the appeal hearing stage.
With most tribunals you are kicking at an open door. They know full well the full range of issues with such reports and you don't need to labour the point. In fact attacking the HCP as the main element of your appeal risks antagonising the medical professional on the tribunal.
It should not be like that though should it?
If HCP's refrained from telling lies in the first place and decision makers were not so eager to believe them and actually took the time to look at evidence from more qualified medical practitioners there would be much less need for tribunal hearings.
Thus saving money and relieving insult to injury for many disabled people who have had to endure all the unnecessary stress that the DWP have put upon them when they least needed it.
In terms of what you need to do it doesn't really matter whether it ought to be like that or not.
For what it's worth 48% of claims succeed with no medical evidence whatsoever. For the 52% that do have that evidence it's not clear it's medical and it's not clear it was the decisive factor.
So, I don't actually agree that listening to different medical opinions is the solution. Medical professionals can offer evidence on diagnosis, prognosis, treatment and medication. They will rarely know anything about your mobility or daily living needs let alone anything comprehensive. The winning strategy is clear identification of which points you score on; why; and strong anecdotal examples for each activity.
It should not be like that though should it?
If HCP's refrained from telling lies in the first place and decision makers were not so eager to believe them and actually took the time to look at evidence from more qualified medical practitioners there would be much less need for tribunal hearings.
Thus saving money and relieving insult to injury for many disabled people who have had to endure all the unnecessary stress that the DWP have put upon them when they least needed it.
Clear identification???
So basically what you are saying in many cases you don't even need to have any disability or documented medical problems at all, so long as you can convince the HCP that you do you will be rewarded for your trouble.
If that is the case then it just goes to prove the whole system is wrong wrong wrong.
No, clearly I am not saying that at all. I am saying that assuming medical evidence from the professionals with whom you are involved will win the case if only it were preferred to that of the HCP is a poor strategy.
Having an impairment or long term condition is the starting point but that does not give entitlement to PIP just as it did not with DLA or AA. The consequences of the impairment are what matters and there's no better person to describe those and provide anecdotal examples than the claimant.
What, for example, could a GP say about your walking about at night, or beyond their surgery? They don't see it and any opinion on it would not be a medical opinion. Similarly, whilst they can speculate about the problems a person with a specific medical condition might be expected to have, it's just that - speculation. Repeating what you tell them about your mobility and daily living needs may add some credibility to your version of events but it's just that - repetition. Not medical evidence.
Social security decisions have always been made on the balance of probabilities where there is conflicting evidence but there is nothing that says the evidence must be medical in nature and the DWPs stats. bear out that it's often the weakest part of an argument.
I am assuming you are looking at things more in terms of a legal point of view than any moral stance. You say the consequences of the impairment is what really matters! I used to run at least 6 miles 5 days a week and go hill climbing at the weekends which I loved doing but can no longer or ever be able to do again.
So please enlighten me if you can, how would that come into play when being assessed? Have you ever even been to one of these assessments?
I'm lucky if I can even make it to the bathroom in time now, so what do you think the consequences of that might be, or the balance of probabilities in the weakest part of that argument?
To answer your direct question, DLA took account only of the need for supervision/attention in connection with bodily functions but latterly caselaw allowed it to take into account the impact on social life. PIP looks at the ability to socially engage and you would be able to describe your mobility limitations under the mobility section. Problems with toileting also score points. So, the short answer is that all three things you mention will be asked about in a PIP claim pack and as part of any HCP assessment.
And yes, I have dealt with hundreds of people who have had assessments and I’ll be having my own in due course. Nothing anyone tells me about their assessment would surprise me. Ultimately though tribunals know exactly what weight to give to such things.
@Broken yes the claimant needs to state the impact and illustrate it. Thats what disability organisations lobbied for with DLA. That’s why two people with the same condition get different awards. However, I didn’t say anything about how medical evidence would be considered. I simply said what it could not achieve. Finally, the HCP doesn’t determine anything. They recommend outcomes to a decision maker. The latter doesn’t have to follow the former.