Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Great PIP decisions…
Honestly, I’ve seen some really perverse ones recently (all DLA to PIP migration decisions) but possibly the one I picked up this morning takes the biscuit. Client (a young man who recently turned 16) had DLA award of MRC/LRM. He has ADHD and autism, is in special needs education, and has been defined as having a ‘severe’ learning disability (with an overall mental age of 8) as well as a ‘complex range of needs’ in relation to behavior and learning. He very obviously requires ongoing supervision and support in relation of all aspects of daily life and can’t go out even locally unsupported (confirmed by the school). PIP2 was thoroughly and well completed and evidence (full SEN, letters from teacher and CAHMS) was supplied. Mum attended the assessment with client and explained his difficulties (amongst other things client told the HCP he walked to school on his own despite school being ‘200 miles away’). Outcome? No points…not one…..
Call me cynical but I can’t help being suspicious that the apparent nose dive in he quality and standard of many PIP decisions has been somehow influenced by headlines like this - 48 per cent of new claims for PIP are successful - New DWP statistics also show that the success rate for DLA reassessments is 74 per cent
Walks 200 miles - no points. How can any adviser object to this, eh? More than 200 metres isn’t it!!!!!?????
It reflects a recent case (not the same benefit) where the claimant’s ‘positive responses’ were recorded, and not the frantic rebuttals of his support worker. DWP actually told me they were acting upon the ‘positive responses’ in order to reach their decision.
DWP operates in Happy Land, where people just need a jolly good talking-to and then they’ll buck up, set the jaw against those silly aches and pains and set off to work like good chaps….
Where the client will allow for it I am inclining towards a complaint against every HCP who does stuff like this. Have had male recorded as female and that old favourite where the HCP attributes every negative statement to the claimant but every positive statement to themselves. They are at least transparent in their stupidity nowadays.
I do think this is cock up rather than conspiracy though to some extent in the sense that IDS set his mind to reducing the PIP backlog pre election and that resulted in a mass transfer of staff from DLA according to the PCS. This didn’t include training and so at DM level we can hardly act shocked at the outcome.
As far as HCPs are concerned I see nothing in their software which compels them to tick boxes in relation to reliably, repeatedly, safely and in a reasonable time or to even justify as single assertion. It’s depressing and the only way to sort it is to complain repeatedly and build up a body of evidence that can be used elsewhere, not least with people like the BMA.
The staff who moved to MRs simply lack training in the same way new DMs do. The outcome of that is absolutely predictable.
What makes me angry is that the evidence on (and included with) the PIP2 was totally disregarded. The opinion of a physiotherapist who spent approximately 20 minutes with the client and his mother (and who clearly either willfully misunderstood/took out of context what was said or lacked any form of training in relation to learning difficulties) was not only preferred when the decision was made, but was the only information used.
It’s getting to the point where I’m tempted not to bother with more than a token completion of the PIP2 but to include a detailed MR request when returning it just to cut out the middle man and save us some work.
We are noticing similar issues. Early decisions, although patchy, did have a better level of quality / accuracy.
Now, for example, additional (medical) evidence is simply ignored at the initial decision and MR stage. The classic ‘you have not provided any additional evidence’ appears as a routine phrase in decisions despite it having been provided. Had an MRN today where this phrase appears but evidence from consultant had been provided twice!
The quality of decisions, reasoning provided etc. now match those for the WCA (surprise, surprise, given the process and its shortcomings are the same!). And we have yet to see many DLA migration decisions.
I have an almost identical case which I have mentioned in another thread and it is not the first. Client also at school for young people with severe learning disabilities with SEN statement and loads of evidence. Confirmed sig problems with verbal communication and understanding. Same scenario at assessment and mum (appointee) not allowed to speak. 0 points originally, SRM on recon but still no Daily Living component. Mum attended tribunal and judge refused to continue without the client and told her they would be talking to client at adjourned hearing not her but they would be able to sit at the back! We have sent lots of evidence and detailed submission yet still no response from DWP after six months. This should have been revised without the need for a tribunal at all.
I feel very strongly about the lack of departmental response to clear evidence at all stages and want this addressed at next TUG meeting (whenever that may be). I have already raised it verbally and in writing in more than one case.
... but they have very clear evidence on aids and appliances apparently.
One wonders whether the 35% figure being touted about is only because they’re utterly incapable of addressing any case with evidence of something else.
My favourites so far have been the epileptic ones. Epilepsy being a case study in the assessment guidance you’d expect some consistency.
Of three appeals I’ve seen I’m glad to report that one assessor had read the guidance! Laughably, niether of the DMs in the other cases had.
Twas ever thus.
“It’s getting to the point where I’m tempted not to bother with more than a token completion of the PIP2 but to include a detailed MR request when returning it just to cut out the middle man and save us some work. [/quote]”
The PIP2 seems like a waste of time now and then. Ive only completed mobility section on the insistence of clients who insist they can care for themselves. Left DL questions blank.
Outcome : no mob but Enhanced DL
ive also had the same in reverse.
Client who could walk fine but had care needs.
Given enhanced mob no care. Bit of a turkey shoot sometimes
I have an almost identical case which I have mentioned in another thread and it is not the first. Client also at school for young people with severe learning disabilities with SEN statement and loads of evidence. Confirmed sig problems with verbal communication and understanding. Same scenario at assessment and mum (appointee) not allowed to speak. 0 points originally, SRM on recon but still no Daily Living component. Mum attended tribunal and judge refused to continue without the client and told her they would be talking to client at adjourned hearing not her but they would be able to sit at the back! We have sent lots of evidence and detailed submission yet still no response from DWP after six months. This should have been revised without the need for a tribunal at all.
I feel very strongly about the lack of departmental response to clear evidence at all stages and want this addressed at next TUG meeting (whenever that may be). I have already raised it verbally and in writing in more than one case.
As it is likely that a different judge will oversee the re-hearing it was presumptuous of the judge to anticipate the course of future proceedings. Yes, it is usual to want to speak to her son to give primary evidence, subject to considerations of age and capacity, but a judge should have very strong reasons not to let his mum sit alongside him rather than ‘at the back’. And, there would be a real risk of her son not getting a fair hearing if she were not allowed to speak at all.
I don’t know if this is a national issue but certainly in our area we assume if the condition is one of mental health, they will receive 0 points. My suspicion is that these client’s are identified as those less likely to challenge the decision. We usually have these overturned at appeal but the effect on the client going through the appeal process often worsens the condition.
“It’s getting to the point where I’m tempted not to bother with more than a token completion of the PIP2 but to include a detailed MR request when returning it just to cut out the middle man and save us some work.
“
The PIP2 seems like a waste of time now and then. Ive only completed mobility section on the insistence of clients who insist they can care for themselves. Left DL questions blank.
Outcome : no mob but Enhanced DL
ive also had the same in reverse.
Client who could walk fine but had care needs.
Given enhanced mob no care. Bit of a turkey shoot sometimes
I have had a considerable amount of success at the initial claim stage after filling in the PIP2 form as fully as possible. But I do have the benefit of easy access to the Mental Health Team given that they refer to me for help with this in the first place. Therefore, medical evidence is easy to obtain.
But MR has been a different story. From my experience, once ATOS have made their (often ridiculous) recommendation of scoring to the DWP (often showing their complete lack of understanding of the legislation and of mental health), anything I put in my MR letter is typically ignored and so is any further evidence. The DWP blindly follow any recommendations made by ATOS without question. I have had perhaps 3 successful MRs and much more success on appeal.
I’ve just seen a cracker…
F2F conducted at home with support from CMHT present; apparently cried right through the interview as they did with me even despite my cheeky chappy routine (which usually works a blinder).
No problems engaging socially…
They cheered up when I spotted a five figure SDP underpayment though!