Enhanced award but wrong descriptors...

I had a telephone assessment replaced with a paper based assessment at my request as I provided a lot of evidence and would have found the conversation difficult. This was accepted by the ATOS HP and a report sent to the DWP.

I was awarded with a lower award for both the living and mobility components for three years, which after requesting an MR was upgraded to enhanced living and lower mobility.

Despite stating on my PIP2 that there was a 25% / 75% split between my depressive episodes and obsessive compulsive disorder, the nurse used a mood diary I filled out with my psychiatrist and awarded descriptors that were based on the assumption that the depression was the main issue.

I asked for an MR to consider the application once more in hope they would look at this. The MR did increased the mixing with people task to requiring social support which resulted in an enhanced award, so the HP did not justify the descriptors she selected considering it to be a fruitless exercise, instead only justifying her mobility reasoning.

The HP said I could not undertake any journey due to overwhelming psychological distress - this can be mitigated if I have my partner with me however, so I wanted to challenge this part of the award too.

I am not very comfortable either with the entire award ignoring the problems I have with my OCD especially with the very strong OCD evidence, the nature of my condition means that I need to things to be correct and as close to perfect as possible - though I don't want to be seen to be wasting the courts time should a tribunal find I would have been awarded the enhanced rate for the living component either way; it also seems if I submit only an appeal to challenge the mobility side of the award, the entire thing can be looked at and so I would still have to make the OCD emphasis arguement or possibly be left unprepared by presuming it would be left alone at the Tribunal as occured during the MR.

It might seem strange contesting an enhanced award of one components when it is due to the descriptors being wrong; but surely that could cause an issue on renewal in the future or give the DWP fuel to see me acting outside of what their award presumed I can do. Another issue is the worry festering as an enduring "what if" for the next three years, which will not be good for my health.

Apologise for the long post but I could really use some guidance with this.

Thanks,

OC

I appreciate the reply, it has likely saved my own and the court's time as a result in how I now intend to approach this - the notion of challenging an award component rather than the descriptors wasn't obvious to me.

I suppose the next question is if the DWP increases the mobility award before the tribunal when reviewing my tribunal submission, or the tribunal itself decides to increase the award based on the information provided, upon AR1 review of the claim will the assessor have access to the MR showing their increase of the living component, and either their own or the tribunal's decision to increase the mobility side of the award should that be the outcome.

I would give my right arm to remove my health issues but given their long term nature it seems likely that a "no change" approach to the review form would be taken. I am as a result worried that sending in the MR decision and the further DWP or tribunal decision (should it occur) would cause the HP to equate the extra information as new evidence or a change in circumstances prompting a full review - especially if I throw in a GP letter stating my conditions remained unchanged.

It feels as though in trying to ensure they have all the relevant information, the HP may simply see a bulk of information, presume it is new and send the claim back down the assessment pathway.

I can't appreciate your clarity with this enough,

Thanks,

OC

I really appreciate the response Gordon - I feel a lot more prepared and a little less worried now I know how to approach the tribunal.

Best regards,

OC