- Posts: 11
- Forum
- Members forums
- ESA, PIP and DLA Queries and Results
- PIP MR - Thoughts Welcome and Q on Specialist Input
× Members
PIP MR - Thoughts Welcome and Q on Specialist Input
- John
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
2 years 5 months ago #272997 by John
PIP MR - Thoughts Welcome and Q on Specialist Input was created by John
Hi guys,
This site is great, thanks for all of the topics so far, they are of immense help.
I'm submitting a mandatory reconsideration for PIP for my partner, who's been awarded zero points, from Enhanced Living and Standard Mobility previously.
I'm really just after some input on my approach so far, ie, whether it is a good approach or if there are consequences that I haven't thought of. An extract below relating to the "Preparing Food" question.
The HP Report said:
My draft MR response:
Would really welcome any thoughts. It may be obvious that I can sometimes be a bit wordy! I just want to make sure I pull the assessor up on every mistake or shortcut and give the decision maker no wriggle room if I can...
And now a quick question - the government guidance for assessors doesn't seem to reference "specialist input", at least as far as I can find. So is it fair to say (and wise to claim) that this isn't really relevant when making a decision to award PIP?
Thanks a lot
This site is great, thanks for all of the topics so far, they are of immense help.
I'm submitting a mandatory reconsideration for PIP for my partner, who's been awarded zero points, from Enhanced Living and Standard Mobility previously.
I'm really just after some input on my approach so far, ie, whether it is a good approach or if there are consequences that I haven't thought of. An extract below relating to the "Preparing Food" question.
The HP Report said:
"The evidence in the FE (XX/XX/XXXX) shows pain is related to his mental health, HOC shows he does not have any specialist mental health team input, and medication showing he has been taking the same anti-depressant since XXX 20XX with no change and it is effective. The evidence suggests he should be able to reliably prepare and cook a meal independently."
My draft MR response:
"I have no motivation to make food. It is many years since I prepared any sort of hot meal for myself, and this would have been a microwave ready meal. If my partner does not cook my food, when I do eat I will only eat cold food that requires no preparation, eg, sausage rolls, crisps. If my partner is away, this is what happens. The most recent example is when my partner was abroad before the summer. When I did eat, I only ate cold food. There are no good days where I feel able to prepare food. Aids/appliances do not motivate me to prepare food.
The HP has omitted vital context which was provided to them during the assessment. For example, I advised them that my medication is partially effective, in that it has helped with the uncontrollable anger and panic attacks I experienced previously. The report simply says "medication is effective"
The HP had the benefit of the above first hand information being available within the listed existing evidence (e.g. PIP2 form, previous decision).
The HP had the benefit of being provided with first hand information again verbally during the assessment.
The HP has failed to justify why they discounted the first hand information as evidence.
The HP has demonstrated a lack of due consideration in reaching their recommendations, as they have copy/pasted the majority of their evidence (which amount to statements on the origins of my pain, my medication, etc) repeatedly as evidence for each question.
The HP has failed to explain how the evidence they have chosen to rely upon actually relates to the activity.
The HP has failed to justify why or how the statements of fact (or fact as perceived by them) that they have chosen as evidence outweigh the other first-hand evidence available.
The HP has therefore failed to justify the descriptor that they have recommended."
Would really welcome any thoughts. It may be obvious that I can sometimes be a bit wordy! I just want to make sure I pull the assessor up on every mistake or shortcut and give the decision maker no wriggle room if I can...
And now a quick question - the government guidance for assessors doesn't seem to reference "specialist input", at least as far as I can find. So is it fair to say (and wise to claim) that this isn't really relevant when making a decision to award PIP?
Thanks a lot
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Waxwing
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 145
2 years 5 months ago #273000 by Waxwing
Replied by Waxwing on topic PIP MR - Thoughts Welcome and Q on Specialist Input
Was your partner awarded Enhanced Daily Living and Standard Mobility by a tribunal hearing or was it awarded by the DWP?
If this was a review and an award by the DWP then the DWP needs to give credible and detailed reasons why that persons condition has improved to merit no award needed.
I think the above is correct. If not then I am sure a mod will correct me.
Thanks
Waxwing
If this was a review and an award by the DWP then the DWP needs to give credible and detailed reasons why that persons condition has improved to merit no award needed.
I think the above is correct. If not then I am sure a mod will correct me.
Thanks
Waxwing
The following user(s) said Thank You: John
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- BIS
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 8547
2 years 5 months ago #273001 by BIS
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by BIS on topic PIP MR - Thoughts Welcome and Q on Specialist Input
Hi John
I can hear your frustration and anger in the answer, but it's going to damage your answers not help you. At the moment you have a lot of criticism of the HP, which may be justified, but it won't help your partner.
The aim of the Mandatory Reconsideration is to challenge what they say about the specific PIP criteria. So you need to scrub:
None of those comments will make the slightest difference to the outcome. Only about 23% of decisions get overturned at the MR stage - so you need to ensure sure the focus is on your partner and the PIP criteria not the assessor.
Your first paragraph is fine, but it doesn't say why your partner doesn't prepare food - if it's because of mental health difficulties - name the condition. eg "I have no motivation to prepare food because of the longstanding and ongoing issues I have with XYZ"
I would say something like: 'The HP is mistaken in saying that my medication is effective ..... (Put in your explanation - about the anger issues) and then say that this has not helped with motivation and has had no foreseeable effect on the preparation of food
You can even put in what the score was from the assessor and what you believe it should be.
As far as criticising the assessor - either do it in one small paragraph or save it for a complaint about the quality of the assessment. Cutting and pasting is rubbish - but it's commonly used.
As for the specialist input - this is often brought up. It's not enough to say that it's not relevant (thought I understand why you want to). Personally, I think it's better to challenge it or ignore it. Plenty of people have no recent input - because they have been discharged (for various reasons) - there are insufficient services in their area, perhaps nothing more can be done, perhaps the claimant has found it ineffective etc, etc. If your partner has no support (other than yourself) but needs it - say so. (It doesn't matter whether it exists or not).
I hope that's a little clearer. Just go through each question that you want to challenge - and reiterate your partner's evidence and refute the assessor without the long list of things.
BIS
I can hear your frustration and anger in the answer, but it's going to damage your answers not help you. At the moment you have a lot of criticism of the HP, which may be justified, but it won't help your partner.
The aim of the Mandatory Reconsideration is to challenge what they say about the specific PIP criteria. So you need to scrub:
The HP had the benefit of the above first hand information being available within the listed existing evidence (e.g. PIP2 form, previous decision).
The HP had the benefit of being provided with first hand information again verbally during the assessment.
The HP has failed to justify why they discounted the first hand information as evidence.
The HP has demonstrated a lack of due consideration in reaching their recommendations, as they have copy/pasted the majority of their evidence (which amount to statements on the origins of my pain, my medication, etc) repeatedly as evidence for each question.
The HP has failed to explain how the evidence they have chosen to rely upon actually relates to the activity.
The HP has failed to justify why or how the statements of fact (or fact as perceived by them) that they have chosen as evidence outweigh the other first-hand evidence available.
The HP has therefore failed to justify the descriptor that they have recommended."
None of those comments will make the slightest difference to the outcome. Only about 23% of decisions get overturned at the MR stage - so you need to ensure sure the focus is on your partner and the PIP criteria not the assessor.
Your first paragraph is fine, but it doesn't say why your partner doesn't prepare food - if it's because of mental health difficulties - name the condition. eg "I have no motivation to prepare food because of the longstanding and ongoing issues I have with XYZ"
I would say something like: 'The HP is mistaken in saying that my medication is effective ..... (Put in your explanation - about the anger issues) and then say that this has not helped with motivation and has had no foreseeable effect on the preparation of food
You can even put in what the score was from the assessor and what you believe it should be.
As far as criticising the assessor - either do it in one small paragraph or save it for a complaint about the quality of the assessment. Cutting and pasting is rubbish - but it's commonly used.
As for the specialist input - this is often brought up. It's not enough to say that it's not relevant (thought I understand why you want to). Personally, I think it's better to challenge it or ignore it. Plenty of people have no recent input - because they have been discharged (for various reasons) - there are insufficient services in their area, perhaps nothing more can be done, perhaps the claimant has found it ineffective etc, etc. If your partner has no support (other than yourself) but needs it - say so. (It doesn't matter whether it exists or not).
I hope that's a little clearer. Just go through each question that you want to challenge - and reiterate your partner's evidence and refute the assessor without the long list of things.
BIS
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: Avalanche78, SUE C C, Waxwing, John
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- John
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 11
2 years 5 months ago #273031 by John
Replied by John on topic PIP MR - Thoughts Welcome and Q on Specialist Input
Thanks BIS,
I'm glad you can hear my anger and frustration, it's cathartic putting it down if nothing else.
I actually had success the last time round pulling the report apart in a vaguely similar way, but perhaps I was lucky, despite rather than because of that!
I'm just wary of leaving it to chance for a decision maker to randomly decide yay or nay, if that makes sense.
I'm glad you can hear my anger and frustration, it's cathartic putting it down if nothing else.
I actually had success the last time round pulling the report apart in a vaguely similar way, but perhaps I was lucky, despite rather than because of that!
I'm just wary of leaving it to chance for a decision maker to randomly decide yay or nay, if that makes sense.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- John
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 11
2 years 5 months ago #273034 by John
We actually got it overturned at MR stage, went from zero points to Enhanched DL and Standard Mobility (should have been enhanced mobility as well but we didn't want to risk challenging it at the time, plus my partner would not have been able to face tribunal, still don't know how we'll manage the stress of that if and when it comes!).
That's interesting regarding them giving reasons for the change, is it worth using that in the MR letter?
Replied by John on topic PIP MR - Thoughts Welcome and Q on Specialist Input
Was your partner awarded Enhanced Daily Living and Standard Mobility by a tribunal hearing or was it awarded by the DWP?
We actually got it overturned at MR stage, went from zero points to Enhanched DL and Standard Mobility (should have been enhanced mobility as well but we didn't want to risk challenging it at the time, plus my partner would not have been able to face tribunal, still don't know how we'll manage the stress of that if and when it comes!).
That's interesting regarding them giving reasons for the change, is it worth using that in the MR letter?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- denby
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 1262
2 years 5 months ago #273041 by denby
Replied by denby on topic PIP MR - Thoughts Welcome and Q on Specialist Input
Hi John , just a thought. If you are writing the form for your partner, about him, even better to use third person. Ie "He this," "he that," "he the other". This helps reinforce that he is not well enough to do the form himself, and you can add a note about it in the 'anything extra' section.
Best wishes,
Denby
Best wishes,
Denby
The following user(s) said Thank You: SUE C C, John
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: Gordon, Gary, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, Chris, David