- Posts: 12
× Members
HPC report and Mandatory Consideration
- SussexChris
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
5 years 9 months ago #214222 by SussexChris
HPC report and Mandatory Consideration was created by SussexChris
My son, learning difficulties and mental health issues, has gone from indefinite DLA award to no points after a face to face assessment.
I am obviously going for a mandatory reconsideration but would like some help with a couple of things please.
1. Under Functional History, variability the HP has written...'Pleas (sic) refer to the condition and the fictional history. I am using this as a challenge of the HP's preconceptions concerning my son's abilities. I expect it was supposed to be 'functional' but I can counter with the argument that due diligence has not been taken with the report. There are numerous errors, contradictions, spelling mistakes and use of bad English in the report that I won't bore you with but I will be using in the MR. Do you think it is a fair challenge?
2. After giving 0 points for every section the HP then recommends that 'based on the claimant's likely future circumstances, it would be appropriate to review the claim in 2 years'. Is this standard practice even when the HP recommends no award? In the justification box she states his learning difficulties will not change over the period of time but the mental health condition may vary in the future and this, not surprisingly, contradicts her report which implies he has neither!
3. Following the MR guide I am doing a comprehensive submission and am up to 10 pages so far. Do you think this is too long?
4. Am I right in thinking that at one time it was stated that only those HPs with experience of learning difficulty and/or mental health issues would carry out assessments on claiments with these issues? My son's was a Physiotherapist!
Many thanks for your help.
Chris
I am obviously going for a mandatory reconsideration but would like some help with a couple of things please.
1. Under Functional History, variability the HP has written...'Pleas (sic) refer to the condition and the fictional history. I am using this as a challenge of the HP's preconceptions concerning my son's abilities. I expect it was supposed to be 'functional' but I can counter with the argument that due diligence has not been taken with the report. There are numerous errors, contradictions, spelling mistakes and use of bad English in the report that I won't bore you with but I will be using in the MR. Do you think it is a fair challenge?
2. After giving 0 points for every section the HP then recommends that 'based on the claimant's likely future circumstances, it would be appropriate to review the claim in 2 years'. Is this standard practice even when the HP recommends no award? In the justification box she states his learning difficulties will not change over the period of time but the mental health condition may vary in the future and this, not surprisingly, contradicts her report which implies he has neither!
3. Following the MR guide I am doing a comprehensive submission and am up to 10 pages so far. Do you think this is too long?
4. Am I right in thinking that at one time it was stated that only those HPs with experience of learning difficulty and/or mental health issues would carry out assessments on claiments with these issues? My son's was a Physiotherapist!
Many thanks for your help.
Chris
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 51057
5 years 9 months ago #214228 by Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic HPC report and Mandatory Consideration
Chris
1. I agree the wording most likely should have been "functional", whilst it show alack of diligence by the assessor I'm afraid I don't think it is significant.
2. It's standard for the assessor to complete all the fields on the report, including the reassessment period.
3. There's no right or wrong length for an MR although I would recommend a concise response rather than a more long winded one.
4. No this is incorrect although if you can show that the assessor has made assumptions or stated opinions that an assessor with mental health training would not have done then you may be able to undermine the report, however, the most likely outcome of your doing so would be a new assessment.
whilst it is important to deal with the issues raised by the report, an award will only be made by your showing that your son meets the criteria for one, so my recommendation is that you prioritise going back through the information you included in and with his PIP2, our PIP Claim guide and the assessment report to ensure that you have done this. Remember he must be able to complete the PIP activities "reliably" and "on the majority of days" not to score.
www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/help-for-claimants/pip
Gordon
1. I agree the wording most likely should have been "functional", whilst it show alack of diligence by the assessor I'm afraid I don't think it is significant.
2. It's standard for the assessor to complete all the fields on the report, including the reassessment period.
3. There's no right or wrong length for an MR although I would recommend a concise response rather than a more long winded one.
4. No this is incorrect although if you can show that the assessor has made assumptions or stated opinions that an assessor with mental health training would not have done then you may be able to undermine the report, however, the most likely outcome of your doing so would be a new assessment.
whilst it is important to deal with the issues raised by the report, an award will only be made by your showing that your son meets the criteria for one, so my recommendation is that you prioritise going back through the information you included in and with his PIP2, our PIP Claim guide and the assessment report to ensure that you have done this. Remember he must be able to complete the PIP activities "reliably" and "on the majority of days" not to score.
www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/help-for-claimants/pip
Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- SussexChris
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 12
5 years 9 months ago #214236 by SussexChris
Replied by SussexChris on topic HPC report and Mandatory Consideration
Many thanks Gordon, that is all very helpful.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: Gordon, Gary, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, jimmck, Chris