How many people have won paper based appeal regarding pip

Hello @Webber and welcome to the community.

The evidence suggests that you are much likely to win an appeal if you appear rather than using a paper appeal. One reason the DWP had a consultation last year to change the system to online digital or paper appeals without the option of appearing in person.

One potential reason for this is that many people do not know or understand the PIP criteria, let alone being able to put a competent paper appeal together. If the paper appeal fails to fill in the gaps the tribunal panel can only judge by what is in front of them, if you appear then they can at least ask for clarification or other questions to help them come to a decision.

If you are genuinely unable to attend before the appeal panel please get advice and help in putting the paper appeal together.

@Webber sorry but besides offering the statistical evidence for winning I am not sure if anyone can tell you how likely you are to succeed. 

Statistically you have a 65% chance of winning at appeal, but this includes both forms of evidence, paper and appearing. I know one advocacy organisation have the following success rates, 90% for those appearing at the tribunal, 50% for those who opt for paper only. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/12/online-benefits-appeals-tribunals-disabled and this was with support from an advocacy group.

That said another member may be able to give better information.

@Webber I do appreciate your frustration and that you find the process stressful.

Please read the whole post first, but you might find it useful to do an online self test, as this may help you, https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/personal-independence-payment-pip/pip-self-test

A lot of the words used have a set definition within the PIP assessment and these can be found at https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Documents/Advice%20(public)/pip-guide-language-of-descriptors-activities.pdf

There is also the question of being able to carry out activities safely. There was an upper tribunal decision which has changed the way this should be assessed. The DWP has interpreted this as doing risk assessments to decide the correct description and points awarded. There is a memo which the DWP sent out to enable decision maker to assess what to award.  This can be seen at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/658567/adm29-17.pdf

The rightsnet post you've referenced says between 17-19%. Yes, maybe I spoke to call centre guy, but this one in particular was very intelligent, a good listener and communicator (can't say the same about others I've spoken to.) He also says he doesn't see why there would be a difference since they are going mostly of the papers anyway. I've also read examples of people attending oral hearing and a. They've already made the decision and have no further questions or b. Asked just a few basic questions or just needed clarification on something. I get there's a lower success rate but do you think you've exaggerated how low, maybe? Also this post was regarding pip, are you suggesting esa paper appeals are similarly as low?

Username_removed said:

With all due respect I haven't said anything about your specific chances of winning at all and nor would I as I have not seen your appeal bundle.

The chances of winning something on a scratch card are pretty good according to everything I have read. However, there is no meaningful comparison to be made. A scratch card involves nothing but chance. A tribunal involves multiple elements of chance but an awful lot of other things.

The role of the tribunal is to weigh the evidence; find facts and then apply the law to those facts. Where evidence is contradictory or not obviously supportive then weighing that evidence is much harder and sometimes impossible if the appellant is not there. An excellent written submission with comprehensive supporting evidence (not necessarily medical evidence) may well win a paper hearing but the reality is that the statistics speak for themselves. At best, assuming I know nothing and am completely wrong, you have a chance of being in the 15% who win. If I'm right then it's as low as I've previously stated.

That doesn't take away from the fact that a percentage do win but it's a low percentage whichever way you dress it up and the reasons for that have already been aired. I fully appreciate why someone with mental health issues may not wish to attend (lots of people with lots of other impairments feel the same) but that doesn't take away from the fact that your best chance of winning will always be with having solid evidence and appearing in person. That has been the case for decades and the question you need to ask yourself is really about how important this is to you. Do you want to gamble with a paper hearing or at the very least give yourself your best chance by appearing in person? Is it something you want to go through again repeatedly or never again? Have you, for example, put anything in about the length of award you ought to have? If not, then how are you going to feel if you win the rate of PIP you have identified as appropriate but only get it for a year?

It's very easy to build these things up so it can come as a shock if, for example, having settled for a paper hearing you find that the panel on the day decide they need to have you there in person anyway. At minimum you need to be prepared for that as an outcome rather than just a win or a loss.  

I'd appreciate if, as I politely requested, you would name the HMCTS region as their approach on the phone is something which needs to be flagged up either as a complaint or via upcoming tribunal user group or stakeholder meetings.

just goes to show that the truth does not matter in a court of law or a tribunal or for the DWP and CAPITA .no wonder innocent people get thier lives taken from them in our benefits system and the courts.