× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Decision making and appeals  →  Thread

Is this a “slip of the pen”?

CHAC Adviser
forum member

Caseworker - CHAC, Middlesbrough

Send message

Total Posts: 259

Joined: 14 September 2017

I’m hoping that the wise minds of RightsNet might be able to give me steer on this one as I’ve not had it happen before.

Had a PIP tribunal last week which was a bit dicey but by the end I was confident that we’d won it once all the evidence from the client and their CPN was aired. Sure enough decision arrives today and we’ve been awarded exactly what we asked for (Standard in both components). Upon looking at the decision notice in a bit more detail before calling the client I’ve spotted that the mobility has been awarded under Activity 2 Descriptor D when what we’d asked for was Activity 1 Descriptor D (both worth ten points).

My submission was clear that Activity 2 was not in dispute (clients physical mobility is fine), I’m sure we confirmed what we were looking at at the start of the hearing and none of the questioning touched on physical mobility and focused on Activity 1 and mental health.

So, is this a slip of the pen and should I write and ask for a correction? It seems clear that the Tribunal surely meant to award 1D as I had asked and so this is just a typo somewhere down the line from the clerk? Is there any risk to do thing this (or not doing this)? I’m a bit foxed as to how best to proceed!

VRW
forum member

Livin Housing

Send message

Total Posts: 61

Joined: 25 November 2019

sounds like a slip of the pen

i would write and ask for the correction to say activity 1 - although it doesnt matter points wise when it comes to DWP and review if they have 10 points for physical mobility that could basically screw the client later down the line.

if for whatever reason they decision to remove the mobility completely im sure record or proceedings/statement of reasons will show that you were
a) arguing activity 1 to start with
b) that the tribunal had decided activity 1 rather than 2

if the client doesnt have any physical aspect for walking and i was the DWP i would be asking for the SOR so best to write in and suggest slip of the pen to the tribunal before they have chance to request a copy haha!!

Brian Fletcher
forum member

Welfare Rights, Wigan & Leigh Carers Centre, Wigan

Send message

Total Posts: 101

Joined: 1 April 2015

I had something similar myself a couple of years ago where the descriptors named didn’t match the reason written on the decision notice. I asked the Tribunal to correct it. My reasoning behind that was that the DWP could very well spot the error and delay the award even further.

Prior to that occasion, I did do an ESA appeal for someone who was given LCW instead of LCWRA, where he had a brain injury amongst other things. On succesfully making the case and having the LCWRA reinstated, I read the decision notice to find that the award had been made on Schedule 3 incontinence. This I found strange as it was not argued or presented as a reason at all before or during the hearing.

I thought to myself ‘right decision, so who cares what they wrote on the decision’ . Unfortunately, and on his next assessment, he was once again given LCW. Two years down the line, the Tribunal judge asks me if he still suffers from the condition he never had in the first place.

CHAC Adviser
forum member

Caseworker - CHAC, Middlesbrough

Send message

Total Posts: 259

Joined: 14 September 2017

Very helpful thank you both!