PIP, geniune

I had a client once who during our interview insisted he couldn’t walk more than about 20 metres without experiencing significant pain and discomfort and needing to rest for 5 minutes on a wall before being able to carry on. He said he hardly ever walked anywhere as a result and was virtually housebound.

On my way home on the bus, we were stuck in traffic and I saw this client strolling up the road without a care in the world. My bus was making progress at roughly the same speed as my client so I observed this for more than 200 metres at least.

I called my client, put my observations to him, explained that he was perfectly entitled to continue with his appeal about DLA mobility but that I wasn’t prepared to advise or represent further as I had doubts about his evidence as a result.

If you’ve never seen your client using crutches before in 5 years and her evidence to the HCP is directly inconsistent with your observations, I’d recommend thinking about taking a similar course of action.

As Paul says, I don’t think there is anything in the way of having a frank conversation with your client.
I’ve had clients who have openly admitted that they will say anything to get an award, to which my response is just that I can advise them on the general appeals process, but I will not do anything in terms of representation (but do keep in mind that some clients may have an entitlement even without the lies, and may be willing to lie just because DWP has pushed them into desperation - those you might be able to convince to submit a genuine claim, but I’d still have concerns representing them).

You should make some allowance for good vs bad days as it’s relevant for PIP, but by the sounds of it there has been, on the balance of probability, too many cases where your client has been observed in conflict with her claim.

Had my best hearing so far yesterday (for ESA) - where the client has been so confusing in her description of her conditions at various appointments that I did not feel comfortable writing a submission, and requested instead just that the panel be thorough in their questions (judge was not impressed).
Unsurprisingly the appeal was refused - 0 points, and I probably lost a bit of credibility with the tribunal, since I had also filled the SSCS1 at an earlier date, when the client presented as more severely impaired. Quite frankly I was lost for words, and didn’t really know what to do. 

Further to Paul’s points!

See the attached - Tribunal Practice and Procedure Workshop – Judge Philip Boyd - 2012.

The above has been linked and attached on Rightsnet loads of times and will probably continued to be uploaded in the future loads of times..

Worth a read!

It may be helpful to remind yourself that your client may not attend another appeal hearing for a long time, if ever, whereas you and your colleagues are frequent representatives for other clients.

It takes a long time to establish a reputation for integrity, and there is no way I would wish to undermine the good reputation of our organisation by placing that in jeopardy.  You owe it your future clients to decline to represent on this occasion.

Hang around long enough and you’ll eventually get one.

Had a client where I virtually had to wrestle the neck brace off him prior to the hearing. No neck, shoulder or head issues at all. Very nearly a brain injury!

Client with a clear mobility issue which would be straightforward highest rate mobility every time. Decided to enhance his chances with a large stone in one shoe.

Frank exchange of views is best and the provision of clear advice on possible outcomes. Deal with it and move on. Do not let it colour your perspective on the overwhelming majority of claimants.

Knowing how to gather evidence from clients and rigorously testing it comes with experience.  I had a client several years ago on a PIP appeal for the mobility getting around component.  His evidence to me was that he walked to his local shop each day, a distance of around 150-200 yards each way (I knew the area he was talking about).  He would stop 3-4 times for a minute or two there and back.  His walking time was reasonable and there were no safety issues.

I tested him on this in three different ways to see if the facts came out the same and they did.  There was no real day to day variability in his walking ability, nor across the day either.  I told him that I would represent him for lower rate mob’ only and explained the legal criteria for both the lower and higher rates.  However he was insistent that he wanted the higher rate.  I should also say that he was intelligent and had no mental health issues and clearly understood the state of play.

However he was insistent that he wanted the higher rate.  I told him that I would not represent him on that basis, wished him well and said goodbye.  It was all pretty amicable, he smiled and clearly understood my position.

At least he was honest.  We have all had clients lie to us, albeit rarely.  You should make your position clear, that your organisation does not provide representation and that she is free to seek it elsewhere.  But, if you do write a submission then Andy (above) has done you a great service by referencing Judge Boyd’s guide.  You should read it.  If you feel that you should do a submission then it should take the form of “our client states that she cannot…, she says that she can only…, etc, etc, etc”.  Get my drift.  Don’t attest to alleged facts that you cannot verify.

More from a Tribunal’s perspective.

Winning Ways: Top Tips - Martha Street District Tribunal Judge February 2013 - NAWRA wotsit in a chilly Bristol that day March 2013 see attached. Worth a read too!

I’m a fan of hearing the perspective of others but not a fan of judges who think they know what a representative ought to be doing. Much of what is said is common sense. A lot of it is plain wrong. I have repped in front of at least one of the authors of these types of documents and there was a huge gap between what they think a rep ought to do and their conduct towards an actual rep on the day. Cognitive dissonance didn’t even begin to cover it. I would go as far as saying they actively sought to confine the representation far beyond what they suggest and to the detriment of the hearing length and the establishing findings of fact from evidence. Read this stuff by all means but huge cautions need to be applied.

Did you put yourself down as rep on the SSCS1? IF you did I’d be of the mind to withdraw as rep and give very general advice regarding the process, you already advised that awards can be reduced. If you help with lots of appeals your local panels get to recognise your work and this is your reputation

And, of course, if any of the Judiciary you appear in front of read this board; as some of them certainly do-I know of two Judges that have previously been contributors here- then they’ll be wondering whether this case is the one you were discussing on RN…

Be decisive and tell us you have; otherwise you’re throwing a lot of your clients under the bus.