Mandatory reconsideration notice question

Hi
I submitted a MR request after my DLA was reassessed for PIP. Following your guides, the MR DM has found in favour of my previous level of award which was re-instated in full. All my DLA-PIP assessment was paper-only.

My concern is that for mobilty i stated explcitly and argued at MR that:
c. For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot plan the route of a journey. 8 points.
However the MR decision maker indicated in their MR notice explanation that they awarded for
e. Cannot undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant. 10 points.
I did not argue this to the extent i even asked the assessor to take into account i would be away on holiday between certain dates.

So i've now got the award and my low rate mobility is re-instated, albeit for the incorrect reason. But what legally stands, that which was presented in my evidence and argued by me at MR or the MR DM's incorrect MR notice explanation for awarding ?

I don't want to appear fraudulent by not conforming with the level of disability but i am unsure how to handle this situation. I also don't want to have to raise it as an appeal, nor do i want to report it as a change of circumstance and trigger another assessment. (I've just been through 2 in 3 months ) Can i just leave it or does the DM's incorrect MR notice explanation have legal definition which leaves me potentially open to charges of fraud ?

Can you advise ?
Thanks for your time.
n

Hi
Thanks for your response.
You seem to be indicating the situation is problematic. This means i will have to take action. What is the route to follow here ? It seems the choices are:
1. Report in a letter a mis-representation of the evidence so some acknowledgement exists in the paper work
2. Follow on with a paper-based appeal and raise the issue there
3. Report a change of circumstance but relate it to the mis-diagnosis. Could you tell me - if i do this, can i request another MR on a change of circumstance assessment result ?



I'm slightly at a loss what to do. I'm not worried about proving (c), my issue is i need to dissociate from (e). Can you suggest any impartial advice here at all ? I'd ideally like to do route 1 or at the worst route 2. I'd like to avoid route 3.

n

Thanks - just to clarify my thinking here:

I've been reviewing the criteria for the descriptors and i think it may be okay as a descriptor has to apply for over 50% of the time only. I'm getting confused here where the descriptor they applied (13e) - says 'cannot undertake any journey' - ie never ever. But actually if i understand right that means only for over 50% of the time not 100% of the time.

Thus i conclude that descriptor 13e applies to my situation because for approx 40% of the time i can undertake any journey and thus fulfill the criteria for 13e. Please correct me if i have understood this incorrectly.

thanks again for your presence here - it's really helpful.
n