Help to understand

suzy_sugar2005
suzy_sugar2005 Online Community Member Posts: 65 Contributor
edited September 2024 in PIP, DLA, ADP and AA

I paid someone who knows about the law to help me with my mandatory reconsideration. In it they stated this:

DWP has no ground on which to supersede the decision making that award. No material change of circumstances is established and the claimants diagnoses, treatment and symptoms had not materially changed and there is no evidence to suggest as such. No other ground to supersede is established in this case and we ask that the award be reinstated to reflect the claimant's current needs and the award backdated as per [information removed by moderator] where [Name removed by mderator] states that: Both Secretary of State and representatives should provide relevant evidence to the tribunal / requirement for tribunal to explain different outcome on PIP renewal claim and finds that the tribunal erred in law in failing to at the very least consider adjourning in order to clarify the terms of the award and to direct the production of any documentary medical evidence which had been relied upon when the previous awarding decision had been made.

Please can you help me to understand what it means. Thank you :)

Comments

  • Albus_Scope
    Albus_Scope Posts: 9,376 Scope Online Community Coordinator

    Heya @suzy_sugar2005 let me see if I can decipher this for you!

    It looks like they're basically saying there has been no change to your conditions and there's no evidence to show otherwise. Then they show a quote from a person who I'm guessing dealt with your previous PIP award, though they've not used any quotation marks, so it's hard to see where the quote ends. They're asking the DWP to provide evidence as to why they ruled a no award for you.

    I think it may be best to ask the person who wrote it to break it down for you, as I may have interpreted that wrong.

  • suzy_sugar2005
    suzy_sugar2005 Online Community Member Posts: 65 Contributor
    https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/909149#Comment_909149

    Hi

    Thank you so much for trying to help me understand. They actually just reduced it again after review 🙄 I think the main thing from this I'm struggling to understand is the last part where it says

    the tribunal erred in law in failing to at the very least consider adjourning in order to clarify the terms of the award and to direct the production of any documentary medical evidence which had been relied upon when the previous awarding decision had been made.

  • Rosie_Scope
    Rosie_Scope Posts: 5,331 Scope Online Community Coordinator

    Hi @suzy_sugar2005, I put this through something that made it more plain language and this is the result:

    "The tribunal made a legal mistake by not thinking about postponing the case to clarify the details of the award and request any medical documents that had been used in making the previous decision."

    Does that make sense to you? As Albus says, it's probably best you get it clarified by someone who knows what it's about just in case 😊

  • suzy_sugar2005
    suzy_sugar2005 Online Community Member Posts: 65 Contributor

    Thank you so much for your response and making it easier to understand. So is the 'Tribunal' DWP or the courts? If the court made the mistake and not DWP, how does that go in my favour as the MR comments suggest.

    :0)

  • suzy_sugar2005
    suzy_sugar2005 Online Community Member Posts: 65 Contributor

    And yes I will give them a call tomorrow so they can explain better

Categories