PIP Bundle - Missing Historic PIP applications. 

Hi,

I received my clients bundle of documents, only to note that it is only regarding this claim only, and no documentation linked to their two historic claims of PIP. My understanding in that at appeal all previous applications evidence should be included in a bundle?

Also as the DWP appeals team have clearly not considered this their response, not even detailing it in schedule of events, would a further response be provided by DWP after they have linked it up?

At their last appeal the Judge basically said as her condition has deteriorated she should apply as she likely meets the criteria now. Which is what we did, it was then refused at initial and MR stage, again!

DWP have informed me to contact HMCTS but aren’t DWP are responsible for the bundle?

I have been on hold for one hour to DWP and then an hour to HMCTS who have basically told me to submit the bundle from the old case as further evidence.

I don’t have a copy of the old bundle to submit as evidence, as I only got involved the day before the hearing for there old application, but have helped them re-apply this time round.

A the last appeal she was working full time, at this application she has gone part time with an increase of sickness and using holidays for absence, since the decision was made she is now gone on UC and been assessed for LCWRA. They have argued in their response she should reapply for PIP now, as her condition has clearly deteriorated since her application, but my argument is that she was awarded 6 points in daily living and 4 points in Mobility last time in 2022, as well as this time,. When she had deteriorated between the last application and this one - which shows in her treatment and reducing hours at work, only being present at work .

She worked 16.5 hours a week across 2 days since March 2023, her application was made on 22/05/2023 there is a PA5 that is dated in October 2023 for further advise which is incorrect insinuating she works for the majority of days. Honestly I am banging my head against the desk with this case, I even complained to IAS about the report (Should this and there very very poor response, be included in the bundle?)

There is no hearing date as of yet, but any advise around this would be gratefully received.

The DWP produce the response and, as per rule 24, it is to include “copies of all documents relevant to the case in the decision maker’s possession”. There are various cases to the effect that this will include previous assessment reports and relevant material from other benefits. If you don’t feel that they have done enough, then your remedies are either to adduce the material yourself (you can get it with a DSAR) or apply to the tribunal for directions requiring the production of material and explaining why it is important.

The DWP has gone through various different phases with these things. They got in bother for failing to provide anything related to previous decision making at all and then they went through a phase of providing absolutely every piece of paper which a PIP case has ever produced which led to 400+ page bundles and I think they got told off about that as well and have overcorrected the other way.

I am not sure that I am with you on the idea that the previous material would be helpful to your client in this case though. You can point to the previous assessment as supporting the points awarded on that occasion to some extent, but ultimately it is just evidence of a previous refusal of the benefit and therefore not entirely helpful.

I think there’s a danger of being distracted by lots of, if not wholly irrelevant, then not necessarily helpful, stuff.

There is no rule on what should be in the appeal papers beyond the limits prescribed in the Tribunal Procedure rules. See 2 and 15 of https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63e10a8fd3bf7f1733450152/consolidated-ftt-sec-rules.pdf.

My assumption, possibly wrongly, is that the 2 previous PIP claims failed? Apologies if I’ve misunderstood but what’s the advantage to the appellant of having them included? Appeals with excessive amounts of paperwork become much harder for a tribunal to determine but appeals including multiple claim packs just get more complex and more prone to microanalysis. They’ll find the inconsistencies to pick holes in rather than the commonalities you want them to see. Appeals including lots of evidence about why previous claims failed are, if anything, less likely to succeed.

How is it relevant? What does it add and why should the DWP reference it at all given that the task at hand is solely to determine entitlement based on the latest claim? You are correct that DWP should be providing this evidence within the bundle, albeit for HMCTS to distribute at this point in time, but I’m not clear why I’d be asking for it and, if I were, it wouldn’t be over the phone. It would be via a written request for a judge to direct that DWP include it which would end the discussion one way or another in an instant.

I’m afraid I take with a pinch of salt the tribunal line that an appellant should reapply because they’d likely qualify now. That tends to be a line taken when an appellant presents during a hearing that they must be bad because they’ve gotten so much worse since the date of claim. Seen lots of claimants do it because they haven’t been advised what a massive own goal it is. They’ve essentially given the tribunal their get out clause to disallow the appeal and make it someone else’s problem regardless of whether a new claim would lead to entitlement. Sometimes the tribunal are correct - the appellant doesn’t currently qualify but may well on a new claim - but mostly it’s just a good old fashioned cop out handed to them on a plate by the appellant. I’ve even seen clients with entirely stable health conditions e.g. genetic, lifelong and unchanging, claim they’ve got worse since the date of claim. Such is the desperation appellants can be driven to.

So, my starting point here would be to ask what specifically will be gained from including failed claims.

Beyond that… my personal view is that it’s not a great idea to involve work and work changes as part of the evidence for a PIP claim. Starting work is no more a change of circs. for PIP than stopping work. You can draw inferences from that but other inferences are available to a tribunal and you will need to head them all off now. Sadly it remains the case that whilst many people in work successfully claim PIP many tribunal members simply don’t see entitlement when a person is working to any extent. Given that medical professionals and DQMs both reflect the general split whereby some believe ME/Fibro are distinct things and some refuse to engage with such things at all it’s really making life much harder trying to persuade a tribunal that a ME/Fibro claimant who works to any extent can really be that bad.

I’ve similar feelings with regard to LCWRA. If there is some specific overlap between the basis for an LCWRA award and PIP points then fair enough but in and of itself it tells you nothing.

For me this sort of case is the classic “back to basics” case. Which points? Why? From when? Real world examples of why the appellant can’t reliably perform an activity and scores points and you’re on your way. The rest is likely unhelpful.

Looking forward to you telling me the previous claims were all successful. In which case I shall hang my head in embarrassment and disappear until February 😊

Many thanks for the reply, no they weren’t successful. However, evidence wasn’t included in this bundle on the precedent that DWP already had it.

Thank you for clarifying though, as I wasn’t aware they wouldn’t include all historic PIP applications, (rule 24)

Her first application she didn’t take any further, her second was at tribunal, the judge said in the decision notice that the evidence given by her at the assessment was more reliable than the evidence she gave at the hearing because her circumstances have changed since the application and appeared difficult for her to give a clear picture of her level of activity at that time. (She also has ADHD, which makes her struggle with memory.)

Sounds exactly like a case where you want the main evidence to be a written sub from you which covers everything and little more than that.