PIP claim and evidence

Thank you, is it rare that the reliability has not been taken into account. I believe that if the repeatedly part of the reliability had been taken into account I would have scored more points for the mobility regarding walking. This would have increased my score from 4 to 8 and hence an award. If I knew another DM actually understood the reliability aspect of a claim I would be tempted to go for a reconsideration. The whole thing has been scored inappropriately. (16 points short I believe on the daily living due to reliability not being taken into account. ) However, I would not like to risk a reconsideration if it is common for DMs not to understand the reliability aspect. Do you get a lot of feedback saying the reliability aspect has been ignored by the DM? I mean is there a high chance with a reconsideration that
another DM would make the same mistake?

Thank you, I could not cope with an appeal, but I need to understand the reconsideration process. I mean could it involve in them insisting on another assessment, can you do a reconsideration and leave it after that point whatever the outcome. Does the claim start date change after a reconsideration has been done. Can a senior DM do the reconsideration

Thank you; the mobility bit is really bugging me now. With the new update of mh being more involved in planning and following a journey, I think it may be in my favour. But first of all, when exactly in Jan was that decided, I mean does that decision of taking mh into account have to have been made before the DM finalised my award? If my award was finalised before that new mh planning and following , would the new update of mh involved in planning and following have to be taken into account if I was to do MR now anyway

My GP s evidence, statement of fact, which she wrote to support my not being able to get to a medical assessment refers to complex OCD and severe phobic anxiety and says she does not believe i could physically get to an assessment centre by any form of transport, taxi etc. Do you think as this was actually a letter about not being able to attend the medical face to face that it may not have been used with the normal evidence? Would they see this as good evidence for following a journey or do you think it is not specific enough regarding cognitive function?