MR for PIP help

I have just been awarded enhanced DL and standard Mob, but feel that I would like to ask for a MR for enhanced mobility. I was awarded 10 points for moving around, but nothing for my mental health issues in Mobility question 1.

I know that an MR is a bit of a risk, but I think they scored low on my DL and I still scored 13, and the evidence for Mob 2 is pretty strong so I would like to give at least a MR a try, as I could really benefit from a mobility scooter or powerchair, which I cant afford without the enhanced mobility.

The assessor's arguement seemed to rest on the fact that I drive my daughter to her school bus stop each morning, meaning I can go out. I would argue that that is as far as I go, and I dont leave the car. I have quite severe longstanding anxiety and depression, and a previous Pip Award resulted in 4 points for Mob 1 activity. I have been denied that this time, so it is that I would like to ask for a MR.

I have found a case that I think is relevant to mine - which I will try and past below. In my letter for an MR, would I simply copy and paste the relevant part, then refer back to my evidence and argue that it should be the same reasoning? (apologies if the part pasted below is rather long!)

Second, the FTT erred in law in its approach to mobility activity 1
(planning and following journeys). As Ms Blatchford acknowledges, the FTT
made multiple references in its reasons to the Appellant’s ability to drive to
familiar places. In effect, the FTT relied on its finding that the Appellant was
able to drive as the sole determiner of her ability to follow the route of either a
familiar or an unfamiliar journey. There are several difficulties with this
approach. First, the FTT did not adequately investigate how the Appellant
would manage on an unfamiliar journey (it found that she would do a ‘practice
run’ but the reasons do not make it clear whether she would need to be
accompanies when doing so). Second, the FTT did not consider whether the
Appellant would need to be assisted for part of either a familiar or unfamiliar
journey – Ms Blatchford contends that if the Appellant needed to be
accompanied for parts of a journey outside her car, e.g. walking from a car
park to the shops, whether that journey is familiar or unfamiliar, then she
would potentially qualify for descriptors 1d or 1f. Third, the FTT’s exclusive
focus on the Appellant’s ability to drive meant that it neglected to address the
representative’s argument that the Appellant could not cope with public
transport. Although the PIP Assessment Guide Part 2: The Assessment
Criteria (DWP, November 2018) is in no way determinative (see SSWP v IV
((PIP) [2016] UKUT 420 (AAC)), I note that it states that “A person should only
be considered able to follow an unfamiliar journey if they would be capable of
using public transport – the assessment of which should focus on ability rather
than choice” (p.111). By the same token, as part of the overall and holistic
assessment, a claimant’s ability to plan and follow a journey on foot must be
considered (see MH v SSWP (PIP) [2016] UKUT 531 (AAC); [2018] AACR 12
at paragraphs 37 and 44).

My assessment does state that the factual report from my GP states that I can use public transport - something I cant do but have never discussed with my GP. An additional letter from my GP does confirm my high anxiety state, and throughout my assessment the assessor makes reference to frequent missed medial appointments - missed because I didnt have anyone to go with me and was unable to go alone.

Please could anyone help me get my letter in to some sort of order, as as you can see, I am not too good at putting a concise and clear argument together.

Thanks Catherine. Re the factual report - could i just ring up the Pip helpline and ask for a copy, the same way I did for my assessor's report? I think my GP would charge, plus it will take weeks to be processed through the system.

And thanks for your encouragement. I have found the sample MR letter on this site, so will attempt to cobble something together.