PIP Mand Rec - could I lose the lot?

Hello Gordon: I take your points in your last post, thank you. My sis now has a local disability rights adviser representing her at appeal, with whom I've discussed the following.

Having the statement of case (or whatever it's called) from DWP, much reliance was placed by the HP (who 'withdrew' my sis's standard mobility at review) on sis's claim that she walked c five mins between she and her mother's home (the farthest she claims she can and does manage). The HP interpreted this as being 300 metres (which I knew was wrong). Google pedometer shows 148m door-to-door (say 150) - so the HP's inference of the distance was way out given his assumption of normal walking speed (it isn't) . This print-off will be submitted to the tribunal, and the adviser thinks it's quite persuasive. We've also asked for a GP opinion on her ability to walk 200+ m repeatedly and reliably, and are cautiously confident that her appeal will be upheld. within the meaning of 'repeatedly', 150m seems to be about the max she can manage, with a repeat home only after rest, use of loo, inhaler, etc.

Her case perhaps illustrates how tenuous evidence about distance, and ability to walk it, can be, since erroneous assumptions can be made about distance, let alone ability to walk it. I've established that Tribunal itself uses Google to measure distance, so the appellant can too.

With thanks,

Marcus

Hello Gordon: An update: HCP assumed that at the speed he assumed sis walks, and given her statement that she can manage 'about five min's walking,' she was typically walking c 300m. I measured the door-to-door distance of this routine walk at 147m, so even allowing for some variance, 200m is neither factually the case, as HCP estimated, nor viable, as c 150m is broadly her COPD-induced limit.

The point is that the HCP made an inaccurate assumption of actual distance covered, which is provable by online pedometer, with the withdrawal of her standard rate mobility based on that (four of the eight points she hitherto had for mobility). Matter going to Tribunal in some weeks, and as a broadly fact-based issue (as opposed to subjective judgement), I expect success (but with wasted resources, as this should have succeeded at MR, which couldn't see the wood for the trees).

Hello Gordon: Update: Tribunal not only restored sis's withdrawn Standard Mob but increased it to Enhanced because of the evidence provided as to the distance the claimant can walk with her COPD (which the assessor assumed incorrectly was > 200m), and 'cos of psychological impediment to travelling to unfamiliar places.

This should have been sorted at MR, which was provided with the same evidence. Instead time, energy and money has been wasted going to appeal...

Gordon: Thanks. Sis got Tribunal's letter reporting supersession to Enhanced/Enhanced - and I'll follow your advice and copy it to DWP. Letter states award is 'til May 2020 (superseding withdrawal of Standard Mobility in May 2017 at review). But as we know, the set duration of an award seems to mean little, as reviews can be commenced 18 months before that date...

I'll be very annoyed if, having spent a year since sis lost Mobility going through MR and appeal in person, some personal expense and considerable time-consuming admin to get it back, the review process starts again in a year or so! I do think that following a supersession in the claimant's favour there should be a full two years at least before they have to undergo review as their claim has effectively been reviewed at Tribunal. Having been vindicated in challenging an inadequate or withdrawn award (or element of), without a clear two years it could feel like one is permanently engaged in claim/tension with DWP!

Perhaps it's part of DWP's strategy simply to wear claimants down...