PIP supersessions (change of circs) - form completion

Situation: The claimant has an award of PIP and you want to apply for a supersession based on change of circumstances, but only in respect of one component. You are happy with the current award of the other component.

Would you complete the whole of the PIP2 form, or only the parts relating to the component which you want to be increased?

Previously, when applying for DLA supersessions in these circumstances, I have often completed only the sections of the DLA form relating to the component we want increased, and added a note stating that we are happy with the current award of the other component and do not want it to be reviewd.

Am I correct in thinking that this approach would be unwise for PIP supersessions, because the nature of the PIP assessment process makes it more likely that both components will be considered even if you have only asked for one component to be looked at?

Well- so far my experience of PIP supersessions hasn’t exactly been positive. In the most recent example we submitted an extremely detailed written supersession request for a client with a variety of conditions including a most unusual, complex and serious mental health condition, along with bags of very supportive evidence from specialists in the relevant fields. Client already had ER of MC and SR of DLC (awarded at appeal stage) and we were seeking ER of DLC as condition has deteriorated. Despite everything we supplied, DWP insisted on us completing further PIP2 and then on client attending face to face assessment (we fought tooth and nail about that and provided evidence to confirm client’s mental health would be potentially seriously compromised if the face to face assessment went ahead. In the end, we compromised on a HV with one of the client’s health professionals present as well as a family member). The outcome? Entire award removed….we’re currently awaiting MR outcome….

Oh that is ridiculous.

I know. I would never have encouraged the client in requesting the supersession in the first place had I any concerns in relation to the ongoing award. I gave client and her support worker the usual warnings but didn’t seriously think there was any risk at all to what was in payment. I shall tread very warily in relation to any potential supersession requests in future.

Anyway else suspect that the massive influx of DMs prior to the election to calm IDS fluttering heart has resulted in a level of inconsistency and stupidity we haven’t seen for a while?

Having said that, it was often the case with DLA that a supersession resulted in a medical. The problem was that the person doing the medical was not told “we’re only looking at one element”. They have a standard form and it had to be completed in full. I believe it’s the same with the HCP software. All or nothing.

Tribunals adjourned to get EMP reports also had the same issue. Adjourn for one element to be reported upon and the report asks them to look at two. I can recall conversations with more than one PO saying that when the request was made the EMP was generally advised “well, whilst you’re there…”.

I can’t see what the medical assessor thinking, in terms of whether one or both components or elements are at issue Mike. We have a DM who does know this, and who does have all the medical evidence including the assessor’s report, and who still makes a completely stupid decision as per 1964’s case.

I don’t disagree that improved communications between the two would be beneficial but it’s the DWP DM who is ultimately accountable.

What I’m saying Paul is that we now have a significant influx of DMs who were rushed in and poorly trained. However, the thing that triggers them looking at 2 components not 1 is the HCP report addressing 2 not 1 and it always has been, whether EMP or HCP. A DM looking at the evidence as a whole simply does not and never has happened in most cases. That’s not a new failure, sadly.

I have to say 1964s case is the worst example I’ve heard so far.

Judging from the decision letter and the HCP report it seems likely that (a) neither the HCP or the DM had sight of the copious amounts of supporting evidence/detailed supersession request/equally detailed PIP2 we had already submitted (much of it more than once actually) or (b) they’ve simply airbrushed it out (which I fear is probably more likely). The HCP report is (as is often the case) practically a work of fiction.

It’s all the more galling as the previous award followed an oral appeal hearing which client really struggled with. The tribunal had no issues whatsoever in making an award in view of the evidence (both written and oral) and it’s quite clear from the more recent evidence that things have not improved (and have, in fact. become worse).  The stress of all this has exacerbated client’s symptoms significantly and the client is (understandably) feeling persecuted to say the least.

And- perhaps coincidentally or perhaps not- I’ve now picked up two more cases where exactly the same thing has happened. Both clients had an award of ER DLC and SR MC (client A on migration from DLA and client B from initial PIP claim) and both requested supersession with a view to ER MC. Both have excellent grounds (and submitted good evidence). Client A’s award was revoked completely and client B’s award was down-rated to SR DLC only.

Am beginning to think a pattern is emerging.

One of my clients grilled me on the merits of sending in their huge amount of medical evidence and supporting notes to the HCP in advance. I personally thought the volume and type of evidence was unnecessary but the client wasn’t for moving. In the end they submitted their evidence in advance to Maximus or whoever with the same to the DM.

A covering letter to the former explained that it was being sent in advance with a view to the HCP receiving it and covering it in their assessment and that, if they didn’t (or hadn’t even seen it), the claimant would call the appointment off in writing on the basis that the HCP was obliged to consider all the evidence submitted in order to avoid detailing a snapshot. They would then lodge a formal complaint and appeal if there was any attempt to claim there was a failure to attend.  A covering letter to the DM explained that the HCP had all the evidence and that the appointment would be cancelled if it became apparent they hadn’t seen it, read it or were willing to consider it. It also pointed out to the DM that if the appointment went ahead and the DM got a HCP report that didn’t then reference the same evidence as was in front of the DM then obviously the former would completely lack credibility.

Few claimants are going to be as blunt/brave or articulate but I must say it did seem to pain them into a corner. Got exactly what he was looking for.

The client in my original example has just received the MR outcome. They’ve now awarded SR of both components (less than client had in the first place) so we’ve lodged appeal (but at least client has gone from nothing at all to something). Most of the evidence we supplied has been ignored. Just to add another layer of irritation, the decision states that despite us requesting supersession in April the client’s PIP was due to be reviewed in June in any case, and we are actually disputing that decision. Except that we’re not, and in fact there has never been a June decision. Sigh….