Challenging outcome of PIP review decision

My client - diagnosis of schizophrenia and ?PTSD -  was awarded standard daily living PIP from 5/2/15 - 11/9/16. At the end of the Atos assessment, the health professional recommended a review in six months because the claimant had recently had a change in medication which might reduce care needs.

He was subsequently asked to complete a PIP review - dated 8/10/15. A decision dated 11/12/15 ended the award from the same date. My client requested a MR and the MRN dated 21/1/16 did not change the decision. Client did not progress appeal - he was homeless with deteriorating mental health at time so may or may not have sight of the MRN.

I submitted an appeal on cl’s behalf which has just been accepted as an in time appeal.

The decision dated 11/12/15 does not:
- give any reason for review apart from reference to PIP regs - Re-determination of ability to carry out activities
11.  Where it has been determined that C has limited ability or severely limited ability to carry out either or both daily living activities or mobility activities, the Secretary of State may, for any reason and at any time, determine afresh in accordance with regulation 4 whether C continues to have such limited ability or severely limited ability

- compare medical evidence to evidence of first decision and does not refer to medication change and does not seek information from professionals. His social worker had provided evidence for first claim which was cited on decision and although he had been stepped down to the CMHT at the time of the second decision, he was still under primary mental healthcare services with an allocated care co-ordinator. His medical records at time of second decision show Consultant Psychiatrist reviews which indicated that he still had a high level of psychotic symptoms and a serious low mood.

I have referred to CPIP/2533/2016 and although the scenario is not identical, would think that the principals are the same i.e. that the grounds for a supersession should be provided. Am I going to get anywhere with this or does reg 11 just give carte blanche to reviewing a claim for no stated reason?

I also wondered if I could use CPIP/3622/2016 which criticises a tribunal for making decisions on grounds which would require professional medical knowledge. Arguably the care needs of someone with schizophrenia and PTSD are, I would have thought, unlikely to change significantly in six months and in this case I can provide medical evidence which confirms that my client’s symptoms did not improve with a change in medication. If the review was carried out because the medication change was thought to result in an improvement surely a medical opinion - rather than an ATOS healthcare professional - who did not refer to medication at any point in his/her report - should have been sought?

Great result to get the late appeal accepted - agree with quoting CPIP/2533/2016 for need to set out grounds, but it also says tribunals can correct omissions by DWP to establish what, if any grounds there are to supersede.

CPIP/1623/2016 also looks at reg 11 and may be of help as it highlights that its use does not directly allow a supersession…. as there still has to be a revision or supersession, assessment of evidence etc to remove payment of benefit…