Pip result

Hi an ex-nurse

I'm sorry there's no PA3. I think you should say to them in your MR that this puts you at a disadvantage in trying to fight the decision. You may not have access to the notes, but you quote from the conversation you had with the call handler and say that you were told there was no particular reason recorded for the decision made. So you want to know why your most recent evidence showing a deterioration in your condition was not taken into account. You then reiterate where you are hoping to score more points against the specific PIP criteria

BIS

(Edit - Apologies for the duplication with BIS's post which I agree with but only spotted after I had written a reply to you.)

Hi an ex nurse,

You are not completely without information to go on, in that they told you they believed that the last assessment was the correct one, and a reasonable extrapolation from that is they believe it still is because your condition has not changed. I would base your MR on how your condition has changed since your previous assessment and most importantly the changes in how your condition affects you has changed.

I don’t think it is heavy handed to use case law if it is appropriate.
MM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016]UKUT 0036 (AAC) – CPIP/2329/2015 includes the following statement.
5. Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 required the First-tier Tribunal to act compatibly with Mr M’s convention rights (his rights under the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights scheduled to the 1998 Act). Rights to social security benefits are “civil rights” for the purposes of Article 6(1) of the Convention (see, for example, Schuler-Zgraggen v Switzerland (1993) 16 E.H.R.R. 405)). The Tribunal’s task was to determine whether Mr M had a right to a social security benefit and so it was required to do so compatibly with Article 6(1). Article 6(1) has an ‘equality of arms’ aspect, correctly described as follows, in my view, in the current edition of Human Rights Practice (Simon & Emmerson, published by Sweet & Maxwell):
“the principle of “equality of arms” involves striking a “fair balance” between the parties, in order that each party has a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent.

I read that to say that it is not acceptable to be put at an unfair disadvantage, which I believe that you are saying applies to your situation. I would add the caveat that this is not an argument I have ever made, so I don’t know if they have a robust response to it.

I think you need to decide where your efforts are best placed, in fighting a legal battle of words to get information from the DWP which may or may not have been recorded and may or may not be of help to you in preparing for your MR, or simply putting all your energy into preparing the best MR.

If I was in your shoes I would go straight for the MR, but would include a statement that you feel that you have been unfairly treated, in contravention of your Human Rights. It will probably not make any difference, but it would make me feel a little better and it might carry weight if you have to proceed to appeal.

I hope this helps a little
Catherine