claiming AA and doing a PIP MR

I’ll try and keep this concise:

I helped a new client fill in a PIP review form. He was getting standard rate daily living. However he also told me he was getting mobility. He does have mobility issues so I put the information in. Fast forward a few weeks and his PIP has been stopped. His points were reduced in the daily living and he could not get mobility because he is already over 65. (I could have told him that but as he informed me he was already receiving it, I was of the belief that we needed to make sure he kept it).

He is furious because what actually came to light is that a family member told him to ring PIP up and ask for a review to get mobility, not realising he couldn’t and believes this person was malicious. So he wasn’t even due a review and wants to go to appeal. All well and good but he can’t get mobility and no amount of removing responsibility for that is going to help. It’s also ringing alarm bells that he told me he was getting it. 

I was in the process of helping him an MR with the daily living component in the understanding I will not be discussing the mobility component, or why he asked for a review etc.

What is complicating the matter is that 2 weeks after the assessment he developed wet macular degeneration and is basically blind. So my first question - can I ask them to consider this information even though it was after the assessment.

He has also got other advice, unknown to me until after the fact, and is getting help from an organisation to fill in an Attendance Form.  Which leads to my second question: Can he both do a PIP MR and an AA application? My first instinct is no - if it were just a new PIP application that would be fine but because of his age he can’t do that. I should think he would have to do one thing or the other other wise it would cause complications.
The positives of the PIP MR over AAS is that if successful he will get the money backdated whereas there would be a gap if he applied and got AA. The negative is that it might not be successful, especially if they don’t consider the new development, whereas he would most definitely get AA based on his newer health status. 

Thank you for any advice/help in advance

1) An MR and appeal are only concerned with the circumstances appertaining to the date of the original decision so any subsequent deterioration in his health will not be considered unfortunately.
2) If a decision is made on the AA claim, this limits the duration of any favourable decision made with respect to the PIP MR/appeal up to that date.
3) As you note, he cannot establish entitlement to PIP mobility element once he’s over SPA, so the MR/appeal will be solely in relation to the daily living component so worthwhile checking how many points he might have scored before his sight failed.
4) As you note, it would seem that the AA claim might be a more pragmatic option given that can take into account his sight problems now. The alternative option would be pursue the PIP MR/appeal and if he was only awarded standard rate DL component, then he could seek a supersession of that decision to try and get the enhanced DL component.

Did the eye condition start after the assessment, but BEFORE the date of the decision? If so it might fall within the scope of that decision and subsequent MR/appeal.

Also bear in mind the different disability requirements for AA and PIP - he might be entitled to a rate of one, but not the other.

For future reference: I always think it’s worthwhile to ask how much £ people are getting, rather than what components. Tends to be more accurate.

I’d also advise him to stick with one adviser, lest you’re duplicating your efforts, crossing wires etc.

Yeah I’d want to know more about what “developed” means in this context. Wet AMD can move very quickly but not “wholly blind in two weeks” quickly so presumably there would have been significant symptoms at the date of the original decision?

The other untouched aspect here is two different services essentially addressing the same matters. Your client needs to choose their advice service. Using two is simply untenable and I would hope at this point that most if not all advice services have clear policies and expectations around such matters.