PIP appeal - waiting for a diagnosis?

I telephoned and asked about the RoP- today I got a letter saying that because I had an on paper tribunal hearing there was no RoP.-which is unhelpful but at least I know there isn't one.

In terms of an error of law- ( I'm trying to do this myself)- the bit about failing to explain stuff seems a bit wishywashy - what constitutes an explanation and what doesn't ?

Thanks- is there anything related to errors of law in that the tribunal applied/ followed an irrelevant case law? I vaguely remember reading something about it but I'm not sure- in that for mobility and mental health/ cognitive ability reference always seems to go to the case law of Jacobs/Agnew- yet using that is implying that the only reason someone with mental health problems would be able to navigate a journey is dependent upon factors such as crowds/ roadworks etc ( and hence the debate as to if those constitute part of the journey)- it fails to acknowledge that someone could be unable to follow and unfamiliar journey just by the very fact it is unfamiliar. So could I argue that taking into account irrelevant case law counts as an error of law?

( I went to my local cab but was very very unsuccessful).

hi
yes I know my ability to be able to articulate things and write a decent case to present to the UTT is awful - that's why I went to the CAB for help - but they were very unhelpful/didn't know much about PIP.
The part about the Tribunal taking into account irrelevane material/case law is not the main point for arguing an error of law - it was just something I was wondering.
abby