Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Around half of PIP and ESA appeals successful
Apologies if I’ve missed this being highlighted already.
A September 11 2015 House of Commons Written Answer shows that the percentage of successful PIP and ESA appeals in England have been rising with around half of PIP and ESA appeals now succeeding -
e.g. April to June 2015 - PIP success: 47%, ESA success: 52%
The questions that should be being asked are ‘why and how’.
The argument that ‘claimants only really get their act together at the Tribunal stage when they lodge new and previously unseen evidence’ can no longer apply. The sole purpose of MR was to curtail this.
This leaves us with poor assessing and poor decision making!
The DWP should be embarrassed with these figures.
The questions that should be being asked are ‘why and how’.
The argument that ‘claimants only really get their act together at the Tribunal stage when they lodge new and previously unseen evidence’ can no longer apply. The sole purpose of MR was to curtail this.
.
But in practice it doesn’t work out like that. What often happens is that the claimant informs DWP that they are going to submit further evidence, but the MR comes back before they have had the opportunity to do so.
Or comes back with the decision unchanged, despite the submission of further evidence on which the client later wins the appeal!
Its a turkey shoot anyway this MR malarkey
Client with chronic MH issues put in WRAG.
Sent loads of medical evidence from psychologist, consultant, CPN, support worker and GP
Decision overturned : put into SG : job done.
3 years later put in WRAG again : sent same evidence with new letters from everyone saying no improvement in health, and medical reports from 3 years ago still are valid and client not fit for any kind of work.
MR came back negative this time and client had 3 months of hell before the tribunal threw it out and put her immediately into SG
Which proves the fact that at the end of the day the quality of decisions being made by the DWP are well below what should be acceptable.
If say the Financial Director of a company had a 50% proven rate of giving the wrong answers to the board, he would be sacked with immediate effect. Yet with that same percentage rate the DWP still insist that they are getting it right first time!
For what it is worth, I believe that the whole purpose for MR being introduced was to put another obstacle in the way of the vulnerable and sick being able to access their entitlement to financial help from the state.
For what it is worth, I believe that the whole purpose for MR being introduced was to put another obstacle in the way of the vulnerable and sick being able to access their entitlement to financial help from the state.
If that transaltes to “a mechanism to reduce appeal numbers and a fetter on claimants’ article 6 rights” then I agree whole heartedly.
And that the success rate in PIP would mirror ESA was inevitable given that the assessment process itself replicates the WCA and therefore subject to exactly the same flaws that we are all too familiar with. We are now dealing with more PIP than WCA appeals and seeing plenty of 0 points to max award outcomes.
The quality of DWP submissions for PIP is appalling - failure to provide relevant dates, evidence, reasons for supersession, inclusion of random extracts (evidence) from WCA process etc. etc.
Hey Ho (once again)