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.

They reduced my PIP claim but weren't accurate on forms

kathy001kathy001 Member Posts: 1 Listener
edited July 2018 in PIP, DLA and AA
Hi I’m new here, I have been reading your stories about the lies the accessors tell, I have copd depression lumps in my knees etc, have been on the best medication available for my breathing but nothing stops me from been out of breath and my depression is worse due to this, I applied for pip in 2016 and was awarded the low mobility rate, I wasn’t happy as I needed help with everything and couldn’t walk without gasping for breath, I asked for reconsideration and they didn’t change there decision, so I started tribunal action, 3 days before my court date I had a call from pip, they awarded me standard care and enhanced mobility, I got a mobility car as I needed this for appointments etc, beginning of 2017 I received the forms to fill in again, and a mp was sent out to my home, she didn’t examine me as she said I can clearly see you are struggling, she asked what medication I was on and was handed my prescription, while she was here I was crying also as I suffer from depression which my condition makes worse as I know I will only get worse, she was here about half a hour I told her I needed help with all daily activities etc, I didn’t move of the sofa the whole time she was here, I received my decision letter, they have reduced my payments to low rate mobility as she stated that I could stand unaided and walk when she observed this which is all lies as I said I wasn’t even asked to stand up, she also said I didn’t have a wheeze which is also lies as I am always wheezing and breathless also on the report she said I didn’t take medication for depression when it was there in black and white on my prescription, I am now to give my car back, and feel I can no longer cope with this as I went through all the stress a year before, my depression it really bad with all the stress with these people lieing, pip supposed to help you with your independence the only independence I had has now been taken because of people you trust lieing

Replies

  • Chloe_ScopeChloe_Scope Scope Posts: 10,653 Disability Gamechanger
    Hi @kathy001 and a very warm welcome to the community. Thank you for sharing this with us all and I am sorry this has happened. I know that applying is stressful enough, without having your added difficulties. I hope the community are able to provide some advice and guidance on this. In the meantime, please do have a look around the community and get involve with anything you would like :)
    If you need anything else then please just ask!
    Scope

  • markyboymarkyboy Member Posts: 368 Pioneering
    I am presuming you were re examined around 12 months before your award ended and they have superseded that award by reducing your mobility 
    The DWP must give a reason and explain what circumstances led to the reduction of the award they cannot just say it has changed because of a review if it goes to appeal and you lose and they do not state the reasons to a tribunal  you can appeal on a point of law 
    This happened to me and in the end i was successful 
  • YadnadYadnad Posts: 2,856 Member
    markyboy said:
    I am presuming you were re examined around 12 months before your award ended and they have superseded that award by reducing your mobility 
    The DWP must give a reason and explain what circumstances led to the reduction of the award they cannot just say it has changed because of a review if it goes to appeal and you lose and they do not state the reasons to a tribunal  you can appeal on a point of law 
    This happened to me and in the end i was successful 
    I would imagine that the circumstances were that a report was prepared part way through an award period (to just check that that the right amount was being paid - too much or too little) by the assessor which indicated that the current award was woefully wrong?
    The PIP regulations allow for a review at any time. 

    If your argument holds any water the DWP would have to prove why there is a change up or down of a current award.

    In effect everybody that on review that has a different award could challenge the DWP simply by having to have the DWP prove why it led to that change - the onus on appeal would land on the DWP and not on the claimant.

    Personally I cannot see such challenges on what you have said would hold any water. 
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,243 Disability Gamechanger
    @markyboy is correct. Burden of proof always falls on the party seeking to change a decision. Always has. The inability to discharge the burden of proof is precisely why the success rate at appeal is so high.
  • curiousgirl96curiousgirl96 Posts: 8 Member
    Hello!

    Honestly I’m sorry to hear that. When were you re examined by the DWP? Have you been given a good reason or not? Can you appeal the decision or not?
  • wanderinggalwanderinggal Member Posts: 18 Connected
    These ATOS people are unspeakable Swear words . You'll have to appeal I know it takes a lot of energy and frustration but this is what they want people to not apply keep themselves in a job and make life harder than it already is . Report this person stating you never moved off the sofa and always take their names . " Every pound counts"  may help contact as they can maybe visit at home not sure though funds cut all over 😑
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,243 Disability Gamechanger
    Not quite sure how reducing the claimant count would keep ATOS employees in a job! The exact opppsite is true.
  • wanderinggalwanderinggal Member Posts: 18 Connected
    Because they get bonuses to agreen to less people getting benefit it was on panorama a few years back the ESA scandal . ATOS are still running departments and contracts admittedly for PIP and DLA but they get bonus for not agreeing to give you disability money . Don't think the system works like a normal person would run it . It's about saving money and belittling disabled people getting is all off onto the private schemes and get us into work even if you can not cope with it . This is the reason not because they care they have to lie 
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,243 Disability Gamechanger
    You may have missed my point. A bonus system is irrelevant. If the aim is to reduce the number of benefit claimants and just that then eventually ATOS staff run out of claimants. If they run out of claimants they can’t possibly be doing it to keep them in a job. It would put them out of a job. 
  • wanderinggalwanderinggal Member Posts: 18 Connected
    I didn't create that madness they do it themselves . And people work for them to probably top up their wages I'm not sure why they would do this needless to say they have a monetary bonus system to only pass 2 claimants maybe it keeps tribunals busy ? Why anything in this whole system makes any sense try working out the reason and wherefore of red tape who knows I ain't got the time to decipher why they do this but they do and it's been proved on panorama I've had this 2 times in my experience and due to deal withe these expletives again very soon.  They are slippery trying to catch those out that try cheat system while those who do need it have to struggle . But as I say again why should they care when they getting their paycheck and small piece of power .
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,243 Disability Gamechanger
    Please don’t go down the road of suggesting people cheating the system are I’m any way relevant to problems with the process. Two entirely different things. Fraud levels on disability benefits are negligibly low and DWP auditors don’t  even think they’re accurate as they’ve qualified their accounts for 30 years running. Nobody is being deprived of benefits because of fraud. That’s just propaganda.
  • YadnadYadnad Posts: 2,856 Member
    @markyboy is correct. Burden of proof always falls on the party seeking to change a decision. Always has. The inability to discharge the burden of proof is precisely why the success rate at appeal is so high.
    You learn something new every day.
    From what you say Mike, it is for the DWP to show that on the balance of probabilities the new decision is correct?? Which normally is the new assessors report.
    Please have patience with me here. Here we are sat with the Tribunal, no one from the DWP turns up. The claimant is the only witness.

    If the onus is on the DWP purely and simply and they have given their side with the new evidence being the assessors report. Should not the DWP's evidence be tested for accuracy by the Tribunal? Why should the claimant's case be tested as they haven't changed anything - the DWP have?
    .
    Yet when people appeal they are told that it is they that have to show on the balance of probabilities that their argument using evidence is the right one??

    I'm totally confused - sorry, but at an appeal hearing who the hell has to prove what??
     
  • Liam_AlumniLiam_Alumni Scope alumni Posts: 1,113 Pioneering
    Hi @Kathy001,

    I'm sorry to hear about all the issues you're having with PIP. Have you considered appealing the decision? Citizens Advice have lots of helpful information about appealing a DWP benefits decision on their website, and we also have some videos about the appeals process online too - including the Mandatory Reconsideration process.

    I hope this helps!
    Liam
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,243 Disability Gamechanger
    No easy answer I’m afraid. Varies with the case and the evidence. In your example what should happen is as you describe. Burden of proof on DWP to show grounds for supersession before you get into a discussion on the merits of the case. In reality a lot of tribunals go straight to merits and thus commit an error of law. 
  • YadnadYadnad Posts: 2,856 Member
    edited July 2018
    No easy answer I’m afraid. Varies with the case and the evidence. In your example what should happen is as you describe. Burden of proof on DWP to show grounds for supersession before you get into a discussion on the merits of the case. In reality a lot of tribunals go straight to merits and thus commit an error of law. 
    Thanks Mike. I understand now what should happen as opposed to what generally happens. So if the DWP's evidence is based solely on the assessors report AND that you can show that the opinion of the assessor is completely wrong based on facts then the case should fall on that alone as the DWP have not proven their case to supersede. The DWP would have to show why they believe that say High Mobility previously should now be no mobility - what has so radically changed.

    Even if the claimant wins on that point there would be nothing stopping the DWP from starting again with another re-assessment & face to face until they win eventually.
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,243 Disability Gamechanger
    Yes, exactly that. There is nothing to stop them but it generally doesn’t work like that to be fair.
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,243 Disability Gamechanger
    I once inherited an AA case from a colleague in another service who had scrupulously prepared a detailed submission on why the claimant continued to qualify for AA despite a new medical opinion from a DWP doctor. It picked the report apart on about 20 points and used about 10 detailed consultants letters to refute those 20 points. Then went on to detail attention needs over 6 or so pages.

    I’m afraid I ignored it all and went in with the case law which says that a different medical opinion is not automatically evidence of anything other than a different medical opinion and argued that as the DWP report contradicted every other piece of evidence in existence the onus was on them to show why the new view was right. I then argued that whilst they’d not bothered to turn up they were fully familiar with the law and had had 4 months from appeal to hearing to make the argument but hadn’t done so.

    2 minutes or so to get a decision that there were no grounds to review let alone supersede. 
Sign in or join us to comment.