PIP Appeal

Hi,

I am currently representing a client through his PIP appeal and have received the bundle, however, the DWP have submitted in their response his existing ESA form and assessment. I haven’t seen them do this before and as they say “the entitlement to esa does not automatically mean an entitlement to pip”.

Is this standard practice? Or are they trying to overwhelm clients with the amount of paperwork for an appeal bundle (there response is currently at 248 pages long)

Thanks Adam

Haven’t seen it before myself.

If it isn’t a mistake, there might be something in the ESA papers that DWP thinks goes against the client. What ESA group is your client in?

The response must contain “all documents relevant to the case in the decision maker’s possession”. The volume of papers has nothing at all to do with overwhelming the appellant, but is simply there to meet that legal obligation. (248 pages is a little on the higher side of average, but these bundles routinely end up at 400-700 pages so a 248 page bundle is hardly noteworthy).

Whether material relating to other benefits should be included in the bundle is a perennially thorny issue. In some cases, Tribunals have been found to be in error of law for not calling for these papers. It can be useful tactically for the appellant to be able to demonstrate that a similarly qualified health assessor came to incompatible conclusions to the HCP in the appeal because it undermines the reliability of their report.

DWP however will not usually include the reports from other benefits. Sometimes they will, usually where the report has been consulted during the decision making process (e.g. as part of a paper based review). Sometimes the report will turn up in the papers for no obvious reason which probably comes down to the decisions of the individual appeal officer.

DWP staff have template submissions available both arguing that the conclusions of an ESA assessment are irrelevant to PIP decision making because of the different criteria and that the fact that a person has been found fit for work tends to suggest they are not severely disabled.

I believe this what they’re actually supposed to do (Rule 24(4)(b) requires the response writer to supply “copies of all documents relevant to the case in the decision maker’s possession”). They just hardly ever bother to do so! One of my standard steps is to request the WCA decision and assessment when doing a PIP appeal or vice versa. Sometimes it’s irrelevant (the WCA was a couple of years before the decision under appeal for instance) but other times it can be very handy (PIP has awarded Mobility Activity 2 Descriptor E but the WCA under appeal says they can mobilise 200m+ they can’t both be true…).

But! I do agree that the net effect of all of that is that for unrepresented clients they are confronted with a hundreds of pages of information to try and wade through and understand which would be challenging for anyone without experience/training let alone those with the kinds of disabilities many of our clients have.

We see this fairly often.

And we usually have to point out that the ESA85 was held not to be reliable, as clients have often successfully appealed, nothing cynical (of course) that the DM does not include that part/papers in the papers.

Cheers

It seems to be increasingly common.  It does feel that for example a ESA medical report that has found someone to be fit for work will make its way in to the PIP bundle on more occasions when the ESA report suggests a person is fit for work.  Make of that what you will.