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.
Have your say about your online community! Complete our annual survey.

My PIP renewal was denied, despite previously being on DLA. Any advice?

bennobenno Member Posts: 15 Listener
edited February 3 in PIP, DLA and AA
Just wanted to get some advice as PIP turned down even though I have mental diagnosis and arthritis and been on DLA which got crossed over but the renewal was assessed as not qualifying

Replies

  • janer1967janer1967 Community champion Posts: 8,477 Disability Gamechanger
    Hi and welcome 

    All you can do is put in for mandatory reconsideration and concentrate on where you think you should have scored more points 

    Give examples of what happens when you try and do that task and can you do it or need support or aids or prompting 

    Success at mr isnt always positive but you then have the option of tribunal 

    Any further questions just ask 
  • bennobenno Member Posts: 15 Listener
    Thanks

    Unfortunately, I have been subjected to at best poor service, at worse abusive

    I called DWP/PIP to report a change in my circumstances as my situation was clearly worse, I had been admitted to hospital and my situation is highly likely to be substantial with a longer-term impact. I was still awaiting the delayed decision from my renewal application and it was felt providing an update may further help inform the DWP/PIP of my worsening circumstances. I had been given two extensions due to backlogs (incompetence in my view). 

    I made the call on Thursday 28th January 2021 waiting over 30 minutes to get through, so it felt very difficult and stressful waiting on the phone.  During that telephone conversation when advising of a change in circumstances, I was informed that the decision had already been sent out and that I had not be awarded anything. 

    I was devastated being mindful that I have 24 years of complex and severe difficulties and had been transferred from DLA to PIP without issue.  The officer (Jade, I think) advised they would make note and advised me to review the decision letter as my knee jerk response understandably, was that of complete incomprehension and incredulity and I started asking for everything (reports, transcripts, recordings) to be sent to me as I was in a panic.

    On Monday 1st February, I made the effort to call the PIP/DWP to update them about my discharge and to get an update that things will be moving forward.  I spoke with Val and was informed that my telephone contact on 28th Jan had not even been recorded/logged, this sent me into another panic (details of that call to 0800 121 4433 at 11.50am for 33m 19s).  Val advised she would make note, request a mandatory reconsideration/change in circumstances review and send out relevant information. 

    What can I do about this matter, if I had not called again (which was also difficult) then my report of a change in circumstances would not be logged and the mandatory request would not have been lodge. This would have let things lapse and cause more stress and delays, in fact I feel it is abusive and put me at a disadvantage and made things worse. I feel abused and persecuted by the handling of this matter and distrustful of how matters have been handled.  



  • janer1967janer1967 Community champion Posts: 8,477 Disability Gamechanger
    Few points to make 

    30 min wait really isnt a long time when calling try ring first thing to get through quicker 

    There are huge backlogs at DWP due to covid , staff working from home and sickness and new claims 

    By reporting a change this may prompt a new assessment as the renewal will have only taken your condition at that time into account and not a worsening at a later date 

    You should put a MR in writing as well as on the phone that way you wont miss anything you want to say 

    The calls are answered by call centre staff who just read from scripts and are not always the best advisors 

    I'm no fan of dwp myself either but you need to concentrate on your mr now or change as that is what is important to get your award 

    It is always advisable to get expert advice before reporting changes 

    If you feel you should report how you have been treated then make a complaint 
  • bennobenno Member Posts: 15 Listener
     I agree that I need to concentrate on the MR, and I am getting support

    However stats and horror stories are worrying, the process is a joke.  Moreover, they are being allowed to have no accountability and making excuses for poor and abusive practice is not helpful. Other people are doing their jobs in this time of pressure, they could employ more people or even streamline their process.  These people have been paid very well to do a job and it has been going on for some time. People are dying and until they are held responsible it will continue. 

    All they had needed to do was speak with my GP, this was a renewal after being on DLA and PIP for over 20 years. They did not even do that.

    Effectively, I may be illegally parked as my award just stopped and eligibility to blue badge no longer valid. It is not about the money it is about being treated with dignity and care as a vulnerable and disabled person.
  • bennobenno Member Posts: 15 Listener
    Hi 

    Just got the consultation report and fears pretty much warranted

    It appears no evidence was looked at as only evidence considered alongside the consultation findings was the AR1 questionnaire.  I did not complete an AR1 questionaire but had completed the PIP2 as this was a renewal and I provided additional information with support from GP and other information which was not used in the completion of the report. 

    It is quite obviously a cut and paste job, as I am referred to as SH and numerous irrelevant justifications and there were things in the report that were not even discussed to justify a position/recommendation. Such as in preparing food, “I can get in and out of my car unaided.”  How was this assessed as I did not mention anything about getting in and out of my car and what has it to do in preparing food. Also, the HP reports about “food supplements”, I did not mention this either and why would I, as I do not eat properly. The HP also advised, “he reports mental health difficulties and is having psychology input,” either I have mental health difficulties or not and if not, why would I need psychological input. This is followed “and using medication he is able to wash and dress as required,” in the nutrition section.  There are many more examples and adds further to my concerns.
  • woodbinewoodbine Member Posts: 3,522 Disability Gamechanger
    @benno the DWP will rarely contact anyone for evidence its for you to provide that evidence and to be honest a GP is not the best person to provide evidence.
    my advice is given freely and is correct to the best of my knowledge.
  • AbbieLucyAbbieLucy Member Posts: 3 Listener
    Keep trying.  I applied for PIP 3 times before I was granted it
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,760 Disability Gamechanger
    Several things to clarify here:

    1 - having previously been on DLA is neither here nor there once you’ve successfully moved to PIP. If a PIP renewal then fails then the first thing to look at is a comparison between the original form and evidence and the latest one. People often assume they’ve written the same thing when they’ve not and assume that evidence which sufficed once will do again, which may not be the case. 

    2 - when you ring DWP you are rarely talking to DWP. You’re often dealing with an outsourced call centre who simply don’t have the accesses needed to note things in the appropriate place. Whilst it’s absolutely legit to report a change of circs over the phone it is also to some extent a fools errand. Put it in writing and keep a copy. Same alllies to an MR. 

    3 - whilst your situation is worse from your perspective and may have a lasting impact that doesn’t necessarily amount to a change of circs. The latter hinges in whether your entitlement would change and often times that’s something to get advice on before you notify something that may actually not be a change or need to be reported. 

    4 -  I really wouldn’t  worry about horror stories or stats. The former predominate online because few people spend time detailing a success story in similar death. The latter (stats) are ultimately in your favour. 

    5 - the number of circumstances in which DWP speak to a GP are very limited and more breached than observed. Moreover, whilst people assume a conversation with a GP can have only one outcome that is rarely the case. GPs know very little of the benefit system and almost certainly won’t be able to comment on many of the activities. Their response is often determined more by what they perceive you deserve than shy knowledge. 

    As important is the fact that when you claim you need to prove entitlement rather than the DWP help you prove entitlement or set out to prove you’re not. Your claim pack needs to make the case not DWP.

    6 - your comments on the HCP report bear this out. They are assessing and recommending. They do not have to discuss everything to form a view. Discussions about many aspects of your physical abilities could inform how you handle using a car for example. The key is that they can only draw these inferences if there are gaps in your evidence/claim pack. 

    7 - you have completed an AR1. It is near identical to a PIP2 and they are interchangeable. 

    8 - put the report away and go look at your claim pack. The success rates for MR are low but to have a chance of success you need to focus on the quality of your evidence not theirs. If you get to appeal the HCP report will most likely not even be discussed. 
  • bennobenno Member Posts: 15 Listener
    Thanks for feedback

    I am updating my evidence as gist of my responses was that things had stayed the same in terms of managing activities and mobility after transferring from DLA to PIP and there was no issues with that award.  If anything my mental health has deteriorated and I reported this in the renewal claim. 

    I do find it interesting that nobody is challenging the poor practices of the DWP being that they do not follow there own guidance, For example “HPs should also consider the needs of vulnerable claimants. This includes life events and personal circumstances such as a previous suicide attempt, domestic violence, abuse or bereavement.”  My background history identifies previous suicide attempt, domestic violence, abuse and bereavements. There was also contemporaneous evidence available about the deterioration in my mental health, resulting in suicidal ideation/thoughts and bereavement and need for ICOPE input.

    Also, my GP, has been my primary and consistent healthcare professional contact for over 24years, so would the best person to contact and contribute further as I had given consent to access my medical records. He supported me with the report for this renewal application and has done so in the past for previous DLA/PIP applications.  Guidance advises “The HP should contact the most appropriate person involved in the claimant’s care.”  

    If the HP report not likely to be discussed then why is the consultation/assessment/interview needed?
  • woodbinewoodbine Member Posts: 3,522 Disability Gamechanger
    @benno I'm afraid that whilst they ask for your GP's details they very rarely contact them, the obvious point is that whilst a GP will know whats wrong with you he/she won't know how it affects your care and/or mobility issues, your medical records also wouldn't be much use to the HCP as most of them aren't doctors.
    I'm not quite sure where bereavement comes into the equation as most people have had them during their life. You say that your mental health had deterioated but what matters is how that has affected your care and/or mobility issues,because that's what matters for a PIP claim. It's quite different from DLA and you need to score points against the descriptors.
    Nobody is challenging the practices of the DWP because the report is done by the assessor and then passed to the DWP DM to make the final decision.
    Your next step now is an MR but it might be useful to use this time to make plans for an appeal should the MR fail.
    my advice is given freely and is correct to the best of my knowledge.
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,760 Disability Gamechanger
    Lots of people are using public law/strategic casework to challenge DWP practises but that’s not always headline grabbing and it’s useful to remember that a HCP is not a DWP employee. Your issues at present are with a private company not DWP. 

    Whilst your GP may have much to offer it remains the case that GP evidence is often poor and the onus is on you to gather supporting evidence not the DWP. 

    Summarising the HCP guidance as “The HP should contact the most appropriate person involved in the claimant’s care.” does scant justice to what is actually said. 

    “The circumstances where obtaining further evidence may be appropriate include (but are not limited to):
    • where HPs feel that further evidence will allow them to offer robust advice without the need for a face-to-face consultation – for example, because the addition of key evidence will negate the need for a consultation
    • where they feel that a consultation may be unhelpful because the claimant lacks insight into their condition
    • where claimants have progressive or fluctuating conditions
    • where they consider that a consultation is likely to still be needed but further evidence will improve the quality of the advice provided to DWP – for example, because the existing evidence lacks detail or is contradictory or to corroborate other evidence
    • where, in reassessment cases, further evidence may confirm whether or not there has been a change in the claimant’s health condition or disability.”

    Yours appears to be a case in which the HCP didn’t feel they could avoid a f2f; where insight is assumed; where there is detail and no contradiction and a reassessment where no change was the default position. Whilst this guidance is both just that, guidance, and does not have to be followed, it’s also true to say it’s more breached than observed and so you cannot go into a renewal assuming that they will contact a named person. The onus is on you. 

  • bennobenno Member Posts: 15 Listener
    Thanks - It appears that they are using external sources to deflect accountability and that is wrong. We have a right for accountability from DWP as they are paid through our taxes.

    One thing still bugging me is the time frames, effectively I have received the ward for the time period I have/will be evidencing.  The decision will be for a future award and it is not really possible to evidence future events so really it is being based on what has happened and not will happen. So past history is relevant and entitlement of previous DLA/PIP should be valid. They have this information but expect vulnerable people to provide it.
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,760 Disability Gamechanger
    Totally agree with your first para. 

    Your second para is a misunderstanding of how both PIP and evidence works bar one sentence at the end. 

    PIP has a forwards test: the 9 months forward. The burden of proof is the balance of probabilities not the criminal burden of beyond reasonable doubt. So, when weighing all evidence they’re looking only at whether something is more likely than not. You have to pass the forwards test else no PIP at all but it’s really about no more than whether the functional problems you have performing points scoring activities now are likely to persist 9 months down the line. Very clear in the overwhelming majority of cases. 

    You’ve assumed that the future can’t be predicted and used that to presume that if it  can’t then only the past can and ergo “everything” in the past. However, when things only have to be decided on balance, the future can very much be predicted. Nothing revolutionary here. AA had a forwards test when it was introduced and so did the original Mobility Allowance back in the 70s. 

    Now, when you look at evidence DWP will tell you all sorts. You can ignore them. The general principle is that evidence from the year of claim is best. The older the evidence the more carefully it needs to be considered in terms of its relevance to your date of claim. A 10 year old CVI which remains valid is good evidence. A 10 year old consultants report on a degenerative condition? Much less so. An old DLA form? If an award was made then it’s good for prognosis, Hard to argue for the validity of a 3 year award if you’ve already been on DLA for a decade for example but, in terms of the content, it’s very unlikely to have much of relevance. Important to remember for example that DLA addressed very different criteria to PIP. There is some overlap but it’s very specific and limited. Also important to realise that if DLA was only awarded on review then that’s a likely message that the claim pack had some flaws. People often demand their DLA evidence should be added to their PIP appeal papers. There’s a growing body of case law limiting that to those very specific circs where some overlap exists but mostly concluding that, no, it shouldn’t. Then of course there is the fact that you should never ask for something if you can’t recall what it says. I’ve seen several people put into evidence DLA claims and accompanying evidence which contradicts their PIP claim. Doh! 

    Finally, you’re quite right. There is a public law principle which says an organisation should use what it has. DWP are being held more and more accountable on exactly that basis. However, the fact that they have your DLA award does not by any means mean it’s sensible to use it. 

    I tend to look at claimants who see a past successful DLA claim as part of their evidence as either a sign they don’t know how to construct a claim or that they actually don’t have much else. Small bits of it may have some relevance but rarely anything which hasn’t been or could be obtained from elsewhere. 
  • bennobenno Member Posts: 15 Listener
    Thanks

    I expect I have a real problem with the descriptors as they do not help with complex conditions especially, mental health. There was a clear lack of understanding, for example in my case, early childhood abuse/neglect, trauma, poverty and other social factors, which is backed by research evidence of later life disability, backed up in reality of hospitalisation due suicide attempt. This also makes it more likely to happen again, again research evidence based; suicidal ideation more frequent. I also struggle with loss/bereavement this is not just life event stuff and anyone who suffers depression will know the difference.
     
    It was real difficult reading the HP comments “although he reports mental health difficulties and is having psychology input,” or “despite mental health difficulties” as way to dismiss the impact on managing or motivation to do daily activities. 

    Also in regard to my physical health my polyarthritic gout is excruciating and my otsteoarthritis degerative, yet it is recommended I did not report any significant functional problems with this activity in there questionnaire or at consultation, and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise in regard to mobility. 

    Also, it “could be reasonably expected to give him pain in his upper and lower limbs.” Mentioned several times, please explain what reasonable pain is? 

    But this is what the decision maker will use not to make an award

  • bennobenno Member Posts: 15 Listener
    Mike, you seem very knowledgeable about how the PIP works

    Would you be able to have a look at my MR response?
  • chiariedschiarieds Community champion Posts: 7,435 Disability Gamechanger
    edited February 5
    Hi @benno -  Everyone above has tried to help, & I fear you're missing the point of some comments. Evidence based research may indicate that a,b, & c can happen, but this doesn't help a PIP claim; it is how it affects you. You could look at, say 10 people, who had unfortunately suffered such abuse as has happened in your case, but would they all have been affected exactly like you? Again, with Polyarticular gout & also osteoarthrosis, another 10 people with either/both will all be affected differently, which is why a PIP claim looks at an individual's response, & PIP is about the functional problems a person may have with activities of daily living &/mobility. If you didn't give detailed explanations of why you couldn't do an activity, what problems you faced attempting or doing it, then what were the consequences, if any, of doing so for each applicable activity/descriptor this would be why the report would say you 'did not report any significant functional problems with [this] activity in [your] questionnaire.'
    I also don't feel 'reasonable pain' was mentioned. It seems rather that the quote you've given does just say that it was reasonable to expect that you would have pain both in your upper & lower limbs, I presume given your diagnosis of the physical problems you also have, which I doubt are in dispute.
    Whilst it may appear that PIP doesn't help those with mental health issues, it both can, & does. We have several members who were awarded PIP solely due to their mental health. I'm hoping the following link may help with your MR, tho if you're getting help with this it may be irrelevant. Please see: https://www.mentalhealthandmoneyadvice.org/en/welfare-benefits/pip-mental-health-guide/help-with-your-pip-claim/how-to-fill-in-the-pip-form/   which may give some guidance even if it's about how to complete a claim form.
    As above, 'put the report away and go look at your claim pack. The success rates for MR are low but to have a chance of success you need to focus on the quality of your evidence.'
  • bennobenno Member Posts: 15 Listener
     Thanks for the feedback

    I am not missing the point, and my initial comment indicating I am updating my evidence means I understand.

    What I do not understand is what feels like the abuse of a telephone consultation and report which informs and influences the decision/decision maker. I hear and understand the report is irrelevant

    Also, I am not in a great place, having been recently discharged from hospital after contracting Severe Covid, just like depression,  did not truly understand fatigue. On top of already struggling in the past couple of years (after being hospitalised for Diverticulitis, several losses). My mental health has deteriorated, and I have not been sleeping well for quite a while due various reasons but worse currently (having to go toilet more often/anxiety/irritability/low/self worth/ overwhelming of feelings from anger to apathy/suicidal ideation)

    Sorry for reaching out  
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,760 Disability Gamechanger
    benno said:
    Mike, you seem very knowledgeable about how the PIP works

    Would you be able to have a look at my MR response?
    Unfortunately not. I’ve a paid role which means I deal with this stuff 5 or 6 days a week (as I also act in a voluntary role for a couple of charities). I can give pointers which have a wider applicability but one to one stuff is absolutely off the table. 

    It is true that mental health cases have been treated poorly but arguably no more than say sensory impairment. The key here is to forget about thinking things like “oh that question is aimed at physical disability and therefore not me” and start thinking solely about reliability. Regs 4 and 7 are where your focus needs to be with any PIP claim. 10 daily living activities. Do you have an issue more than 50% of the time with those activities? Can you do them reliably i.e. safely, to a reasonable standard, repeatedly and in a reasonable time? If any one of those apply re: an activity then you’re in points scoring territory. 
  • bennobenno Member Posts: 15 Listener
    Thanks for your response Mike

    What are Regs 4 and 7?

  • woodbinewoodbine Member Posts: 3,522 Disability Gamechanger
    Some (i hope) relevant reading, can I also add that earlier you mentioned bereavement, and later poverty, neither of which have any bearing on PIP anyway here you go:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/861844/PIP-handbook.pdf
    my advice is given freely and is correct to the best of my knowledge.
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,760 Disability Gamechanger
    Reg 4 is the reliability one and Reg 7 is the 50% rule..
  • bennobenno Member Posts: 15 Listener
    Thanks for updates
  • bennobenno Member Posts: 15 Listener
    Hi all

    Looks like MR has been successful but still having major issues with DWP, they actually completed my MR early (Requested on 1st Feb and completed 23rd Feb) without looking at my new evidence.  Even though I had informed them I would send it on within four weeks timescale, as needed to receive and review the HCP assessor's report.  I sent my response on 22nd Feb and it was signed for/received on 23rd Feb. 

    I received the MR decision on 1st March advising on front page that I could not be awarded for both daily living needs and mobility needs.  However, on reviewing the decision/descriptors I had received 8 points for Daily Living and 10 points for Mobility effectively meaning I should have been awarded standard for both.  I did call them waiting nearly 90 minutes and they advised that there was an error with the computer system in producing the letter and in making early reconsideration without looking at my new evidence/response. A case manager did call me back to apologise and advised a corrected confirmation letter would be sent. 

    It is undignified and stressful having to feel like you need to justify how a disability affects you but getting such a poor service makes it worse especially when the assessor's report is clearly looking to justify why you do not meet their restrictive descriptors even though you have long term and enduring conditions. 

    Thanks for advice and support
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,760 Disability Gamechanger
    I doubt you’ll make any progress with the idea of the MR having been done “early”. That simply doesn’t exist as a thing. Remember you are not necessarily talking to DWP when talking directly on the phone and you’re certainly not talking to anyone with the expertise to comment. When they tell you they’ll hold off until they receive your evidence that is essentially BS. You rang. You started the MR process and it will run as quickly as it can. If DWP waited on every claimant who said they had evidence to submit but not just yet then the whole decision making process would cease inside a year. It’s simply not feasible. 
  • bennobenno Member Posts: 15 Listener
    Hi Mike

    There is a process and the MR should not have started until four week period had passed.  I was informed that they had erred, when speaking with the case manager/officer, so it was a thing.

    So advice that has been provided is that DWP do not answer phone (outsourced/fools errand), so why contact them at all, which against the information provided by DWP/Government. Also that the HP report is not relevant (outsourced) or that HP needs to follow guidance (What's the point of guidance?)  

    There is a four week timescale so they would not wait beyond that time, so your point about submitting evidence seems moot.  No comment on incorrect letter?

    I understand the point you are making on advising to focus on evidence but it is relevant that certain conditions should meet criteria and the DWP/HP should be knowledgeable about these. As stated it can be traumatising discussing things with a stranger who appears to have a certain agenda. There is clear evidence that APs have been producing poor reports yet nothing is done about this and these will inform DMs when making decisions.

    There seems to be be a lot of negativity when I have raised issues around poor service; abuse is abuse intentional or not is still abuse and making excuses for DWP will only allow them to continue with poor practice.

  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,760 Disability Gamechanger
    To take those in turn. 

    1 - if it’s a thing, take a specific challenge on it. I promise you 100% such a challenge will fail. Of course they’ll make nice noises to you about what they ought to have done. That doesn’t stop it being a nonsense. There is not and never has been any process whereby you can start a challenge and request a pause until you’ve got your stuff together. If you start an MR and they made a decision a day later, tough. As I said, it’s BS. Whole system collapses quickly if you need to pause decisions to wait for stuff that may not even come. 

    Had numerous claimants over the years tell me exactly this. “… but I asked them to wait!”. My answer is always the same. Learn from the mistake. You have 13 months to submit an MR. If you’re not ready to go then... don’t, because they will make a decision when they are ready to do so and not pay a moments attention to a time-scald dictated by you.

    2 - the current advice actually remains to not contact them unless it’s absolutely unavoidable but beyond that, yes, there’s no reason to contact them at all for advice. They have no advice role; no expert training and so on. They are literally the last people you would use to seek accurate advice on benefits. 

    3 - there is no 4 week time-scale for evidence for MRs. That’s a misunderstanding of the legislation.

    4 - there are no “conditions that should meet criteria”. Every case is different. What impacts you may not impact someone else with the same condition etc. Shouldn’t have to be saying this at this stage. This is one of the fundamentals of PIP.

    Nothing else to add really. 
  • bennobenno Member Posts: 15 Listener
    Mike, Thanks for getting back, you appear to address points you only wish to address (No comment on incorrect letter)

    It appears your views come only from a strictly legal standpoint and I feel that is unhelpful as legalisation will always change (what is legal is not necessarily moral) and does not take into account justice or fairness so becomes quite limited when discussing support and advice.  DWP need to be held to accountability and ignoring guidance only adds to the already disgraceful behaviour/treatment towards people with disabilities. Welfare benefits claims are far from easy to navigate and people often have complex needs which can prove to be barriers to making applications. This seems more difficult with Personal Independence Payment claims, and the complexity of the application process does not help and can stand in the way of successful claims for people who are really in need of the support.

    Also as previously stated and in general there is a lack of understanding of mental health conditions/illness on how this impacts on managing ADLs.  It appears that my MR even without additional information was assessed as meeting descriptors which makes the whole process arbitrary as it had not when making original decision.  Either evidence was there or was not.

    The system is not fit for purpose
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,760 Disability Gamechanger
    My perspective is practical rather than legal. I never pick and choose my answers other than on the basis of relevance. I don’t thank you for the accusation which is ill-informed and clearly not based on reading any of my other responses on here. I specifically didn’t address the incorrect letter issue as I don’t see it as relevant and there’s nothing new to be said. Life is too short to repeat the same information just because someone has asked the same thing from a different angle. Such things happen all the time. They’re frustrating and annoying but after that they don’t really change the fundamentals of your issue. 

    I don’t disagree with any of their other points but they’re not issues you’re going to be talking up; not issues that will get you PIP and not central to your claim. Nor are the issues you describe are not exclusive to mental health. They are structural and impact multiple impairments. Equally, not every refusal of PIP is an injustice.
  • bennobenno Member Posts: 15 Listener
    Hi Mike, I have not made any accusations only offered my views and I did not state that issues were exclusive to mental health, these are your assumptions and what you see as relevant.  I had not mentioned incorrect letter previously but did mention a catalogue of poor service which seems to be easily dismissed.

    I agree, as stated it is systematic/structural (system not fit for purpose) and can see your advice was practical and in my previous posts acknowledged that I had taken it on board.  Yes, there are claims that will be refused justifiably but my point was about those that should not have been. 
Sign in or join us to comment.