PIP2 Form Incorrectly Completed

Hi

I’ve had a look and can’t seem to find any caselaw or precedent on this so hoping someone can point me in the right direction.

Cl has a PIP appeal coming up and I’m finishing a written submission for them. They completed the PIP2 form and subsequent PIP Award Review form on their own.

Unfortunately, both are quite bad with lots of things not mentioned or not well-explained which (as well as other reasons) led to them being investigated for fraud with a subsequent overpayment appeal.

Our client has good and bad days and didn’t mention this on the form nor did he report any changes in illnesses which has occurred (suffers from severe mental health issues as well a brain injuries).

I want to argue that the DWP and Judge should look beyond the PIP2 form as he was unable to complete the form correctly and these mistakes were unintentional.

Is there any caselaw or precedence that discusses “ignoring” the PIP2 forms which were incorrectly filled in?

Thanks

Adam

It is quite usual for the forms to either understate difficulties or present issues in a way which is not particularly useful as far as the legal exercise of assigning descriptors goes and so it is perfectly valid for a tribunal on appeal to prefer the oral evidence of the claimant to what was written in the form. The form has no special relevance beyond being one part of the evidential puzzle - the Tribunal can prefer whatever evidence it makes the most sense to prefer.

Although things took a rather abrupt turn when you said:

led to them being investigated for fraud with a subsequent overpayment appeal.

I am assuming in this case the DWP is arguing something in terms that the award of benefit was made on the basis of the papers and the papers misrepresented the factual position causing an award to be made on a false basis.

There are a number of ways that a case like this could be argued, one of which is “I accept that the form was wrong however notwithstanding that, I was still significantly disabled and the decision should have reflected this”. This does create some tactical issues, one of which is that it is pretty much going to close off any argument that any overpayment left after fact finding is done should not be recoverable.

It would be inappropriate for a tribunal to ignore any evidence (save for a few reasons).
The tribunal (and the DWP) should make their decision based on all evidence available. The PIP forms only form one part of that burden.
As long as there is other compelling evidence there is no reason for the issue you mention to come up (for that matter, the vast majority of PIP forms are probably incomplete or inaccurate, especially where there hasn’t been support from a welfare adviser).

There are some other issues though.
For one, if your client can’t (reliably) present a credible description of the effects of his conditions, you’ll be more dependant on other evidence.

You also face an issue with the reporting of changes - you’ll have an argument as to why CiCs aren’t reported accurately and timely. Does your client have anyone that helps him deal with paperwork, finances etc?

Elliot Kent - 20 April 2021 02:20 PM

It is quite usual for the forms to either understate difficulties or present issues in a way which is not particularly useful as far as the legal exercise of assigning descriptors goes and so it is perfectly valid for a tribunal on appeal to prefer the oral evidence of the claimant to what was written in the form. The form has no special relevance beyond being one part of the evidential puzzle - the Tribunal can prefer whatever evidence it makes the most sense to prefer.

Although things took a rather abrupt turn when you said:

led to them being investigated for fraud with a subsequent overpayment appeal.

I am assuming in this case the DWP is arguing something in terms that the award of benefit was made on the basis of the papers and the papers misrepresented the factual position causing an award to be made on a false basis.

There are a number of ways that a case like this could be argued, one of which is “I accept that the form was wrong however notwithstanding that, I was still significantly disabled and the decision should have reflected this”. This does create some tactical issues, one of which is that it is pretty much going to close off any argument that any overpayment left after fact finding is done should not be recoverable.

Thanks for the response.

Yes, the DWP are arguing exactly that. From our perspective, its quite clear from the evidence that he didn’t know what was going on regarding the form but we have issues with regards to the other evidence the DWP have produced which I’m hoping to argue that what they are mentioning is either: a. irrelevant, b. misinterpreted or a combination of both.

I’m hoping a combination of those arguments leads to them deciding its not recoverable on the basis that the evidence was misinterpreted/not relevant.

The appeal has been postponed due to a number of failures by the DWP, including: no appeal bundle being sent out, appeal bundle being unreadable and asking for 2 separate appeals then stating they want them together! (Hoping the Judge is too annoyed at the DWP and just awards it in favour of our client haha).

Thanks

Adam

Va1der - 20 April 2021 02:28 PM

It would be inappropriate for a tribunal to ignore any evidence (save for a few reasons).
The tribunal (and the DWP) should make their decision based on all evidence available. The PIP forms only form one part of that burden.
As long as there is other compelling evidence there is no reason for the issue you mention to come up (for that matter, the vast majority of PIP forms are probably incomplete or inaccurate, especially where there hasn’t been support from a welfare adviser).

There are some other issues though.
For one, if your client can’t (reliably) present a credible description of the effects of his conditions, you’ll be more dependant on other evidence.

You also face an issue with the reporting of changes - you’ll have an argument as to why CiCs aren’t reported accurately and timely. Does your client have anyone that helps him deal with paperwork, finances etc?

Thanks for the response.

He did/does have the help of his partner, however she also suffers from mental health issues so haven’t really been dealing with anything.

The change of circumstances issues is something I’m arguing didn’t happen i.e. no change happened therefore no need to report anything. They’ve been the same throughout the process since late 2016 but unfortunately didn’t mention about good or bad days on the form which is why the DWP have stated that he misrepresented himself.

I had cause to come across a form completed by a front line professional acting as a friend to the parent/appointee. Considerable trust was put in the friend because of their professional role although they weren’t acting in that capacity in doing the form. It was appalling. The claimant could not give evidence as they were a child. Parent/appointee could give verbal evidence but I knew more about the childs health than them. Always a bad start when the condition is listed as “partially-sighted” and I have to explain that is a consequence of a medical condition and not a condition in itself.

So, I rewrote the form i.e. I interviewed the parent and child and used that to complete the form as it ought to have been. Was totally up front with the tribunal and despite one idiotic DQM moment along the lines of “... but you wrote this in your original claim pack” it was welcomed with open arms by the panel. Correct award made. Appreciate you may not have time to do this but laying out what the evidence ought to have said; where you got that from etc. can be very useful. 

Mike Hughes - 20 April 2021 04:12 PM

I had cause to come across a form completed by a front line professional acting as a friend to the parent/appointee. Considerable trust was put in the friend because of their professional role although they weren’t acting in that capacity in doing the form. It was appalling. The claimant could not give evidence as they were a child. Parent/appointee could give verbal evidence but I knew more about the childs health then them. Always a bad start when the condition is listed as “partially-sighted” and I have to explain that is a consequence of a medical condition and not a condition in itself.

So, I rewrote the form i.e. I interviewed the parent and child and used that to complete the form as it ought to have been. Was totally up front with the tribunal and despite one idiotic DQM moment along the lines of “... but you wrote this in your original claim pack” it was welcomed with open arms by the panel. Correct award made. Appreciate you may not have time to do this but laying out what the evidence ought to have said; where you got that from etc. can be very useful. 

Thats essentially what I’m doing in my submission at the moment - honestly, thought I was wasting my time but its good to hear that others have done it!

Will happily admit that some colleagues thought I was bonkers but it worked beautifully because the appointee can at least sit there and say

- I know more now than I did when the 1st form was done.
- my WRO did a 2 hour HV to gather the info with me and my offspring.
- I stand by the 2nd one rather than the 1st.

It often takes no longer than doing a really good detailed submission so what’s the difference.

It’s not something I plan on repeating but I was so appalled by the form it felt the appropriate exception to pursue. I will say I also did a written sub to go with it but obviously it didn’t need to be excessive. I think it was effectively ““read the new version of the form and then try and explain why my client doesn’t get DLA”.

Good luck.