PIP Tribunal

I'm really sorry to hear the bad news @Wonko.

As you mentioned maybe being able to do a simple letter, is it worth asking for the statement of reasons for now, and maybe just a letter or phone call to the CAB to ask them to take over your case? From what I gather, they will literally take over all the paperwork if you want.

The CAB could potentially file an appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the grounds that the First Tier Tribunal made an error.
Wonko said:
It ... basically only says I suffer from type 2 diabetes and have "some memory problems" and thus don't qualify for an award - so no mention of my ME or ASD
Click to expand...
There is only one ground of appeal to the UT, which is that the FTT made an 'error of law'. This term covers a wider range of errors than many people first imagine. The FTT's statement of reasons must show that it:

applied the law correctly
made correct factual findings
gave adequate reasons for its decision
made the decision in the correct way
obeyed the rules of natural justice

A failure to do any of these can constitute an error of law.

Much case law, from both the UT and the higher courts, concerns errors of law in FTT decisions, including the following:

I. applying the wrong law – for example where the FTT used the wrong legislation, misunderstood the legislation or overlooked relevant case law.

II. making incorrect factual findings – To make a decision the FTT must decide what the facts are and not take into account irrelevant facts.

III. giving inadequate reasons – The FTT must explain its decision: it must explain how the evidence established the facts and why the facts made it apply the law in the way it did.

IV. making a decision that is not supported by the evidence – for example where the FTT ignored or overlooked evidence, misinterpreted evidence, took into account irrelevant evidence or made a decision that does follow logically from the evidence.

V. making a decision that is ‘perverse’ – where the FTT acted irrationally and in a way that no reasonable FTT, given the relevant law and the evidence before it and the findings of fact, could have come to the decision that it did.

VI. breach of ‘the rules natural justice – This includes failing to follow FTT procedure, for example failing to give parties 14 days’ notice of an oral appeal hearing or failing to inform parties that it intends to take into account a matter not addressed in the appeal papers or during the hearing. It also includes failure to follow the procedural rules for all judicial process, for example bias or not allowing a party to speak.
Click to expand...


I'm slightly concerned ... if at all useful, please do give forum members the chance to brainstorm a way to get you help to win eg, maybe one of us with some spare capacity could act as a liaison to get the CAB out to you for a home visit, and explain in advance the difficulties caused in appointments by ME and Aspergers. Maybe then you could almost just hand them a copy of your file.

ETA removed some text and slight revision per @Wonko's edit below.
 
Last edited:
Wonko said:
@Indigophoton

My apologies for slightly concerning you, the part of that sentence which you mention did has been removed, so as to avoid recurrence, it shouldn't have been there or survived content filtering.
Click to expand...

You don't have to apologise for concerning us, we are concerned (i think) because we've seen an injustice done to somebody we like.

I would slightly change the language to say that we are 'concerned' by what has happened to you, i.e. the concern is directed at the action of others, not you. There is also a willingness to try to help, while still respecting your wishes on how you choose to proceed.

:hug:
 
MEMarge said:
Z's husband is keen to make a formal complaint to DWP, which we may well do. I will also be sending a summarised version to Carol Monaghan/Laura Pidcock MPs.

I am awaiting, with interest, the minutes from the last Forward ME meeting as the Chief Medic from Capita was going to be attending!

@Russell Fleming, do the ME Association plan on collating more info/case studies on the farce that is PIP, especially for those with ME? @Action for M.E.?
Click to expand...

Hello - we regularly respond to Government consultations on welfare benefits, and survey people with M.E. to do this, so yes, absolutely. We have done this most recently for the NI independent review of PIP and the Work and Pensions Committee inquiry at the end of last year.

We also ask people to share their experience of applying for and/or receiving welfare benefits as part of our Share your story form.

Clare Ogden
Head of Communications and Engagement
Action for M.E.
 
I have just received the PIP tribunal statement of reasons.

Basically they have used the no medical evidence defense, stating that as I am not receiving treatment for ME it is self declared and therefore imply it is bogus.

They acknowledge my cognitive difficulties but give them no weight.

They make no real statements about my aspergers.

I could have sworn when I first read it that they acknowledged that I couldn't walk more than 50m repeatedly, and that in another place they said they accepted the HCPs statement that I could walk 50-200m repeatedly and reliably (which is why it jumped out at me) - but I can't find it again (will try later as that's a difference of 4 points, which would have given me standard mobility).

There's nothing really to work with, "medical" evidence which I didn't counter is the stated reason for their decision, but it's clear from the tone of the reply that they are of the opinion, and the fact that it's taken 6 months to get one, that ME, MCI and ASD are trivial conditions and not deserving of any award on that basis alone.

The DWP did have a representative present.
 
Found it
..though the tribunal accepted that he walked with a crutch and would have limitations in mobilising reliably and repeatedly over distances in excess of 50 meters
Click to expand...
(That's the end of that paragraph and section - I haven't cut the end off)

but they still decided that
Can stand and then move more than 50 metres but no more than 200 metres, either aided or unaided. 4 points
Click to expand...
was more applicable than
Can stand and then move unaided more than 20 metres but no more than 50 metres. 8 points
Click to expand...
when they accepted that I would have "limitations" doing so reliably and repeatedly.

That's the difference between a PIP award and no PIP award and the value of that, in this case, would be £22.65 a week - since June 2017, not what I feel I should be getting, by a long way, as I think I qualified for at least standard rate on both living and mobility, but still, £1450 or thereabouts, of money that they should have paid me, that they haven't.

So I'm puzzled.

ETA - and my head hurts.
 
Last edited:
That is completely illogical. If they acknowledge you walk with a crutch in one section, how can they say you can walk unaided in another. Bonkers. And that was the appeal stage, so presumably there is no higher appeal possible. What rotten scoundrels.

Given it's gone on so long, are you eligible to start the whole ridiculous process again from the beginning to ask for PIP from now? And can you actually manage to do so, or would it be far too stressful?
 
There is the upper tribunal, but it has to be done in 28 days, from when they say they sent the SoR, and has to be on a point of law, there is no way I could manage it.

Most of it is illogical, they criticize me for giving such detailed responses and say this indicates a far higher level of function than I am claiming, when I'm not claiming to be a vegetable, then say that they couldn't understand my responses - so which is it?

They say I made a claim for all descriptors, this is not accurate.

They say I criticized the HCP's qualifications, this is not accurate, I said I didn't consider a paramedic was best qualified to assess someone with ASD, MCI and ME.

etc.

But as far as I can see, no 'legal' errors, and errors of fact is not an error of law.

ETA - and the upper tribunal, if they found for me, would simply direct that my case be looked at again, they wouldn't make a decision in my favour resulting in an award. They simply decide error of law or not.

I could re-apply for PIP, theoretically, but the only reason I got DLA was a years long campaign by people to help and support me, I didn't get on the first, or the 5th, go, it took 6-7 years.

...and I'd be dealing with the same people, in the same system, as I've spent the last, well, nearly 2 years, 18+ months anyway, battling, with help, and losing, with no help.

It's not doable - at some point, probably soon, it's overdue, I'm going to have a similar battle with ESA or probably UC
 
Last edited:
Wonko said:
There is the upper tribunal, but it has to be done in 28 days, from when they say they sent the SoR, and has to be on a point of law, there is no way I could manage it.

Most of it is illogical, they criticize me for giving such detailed responses and say this indicates a far higher level of function than I am claiming, when I'm not claiming to be a vegetable, then say that they couldn't understand my responses - so which is it?

They say I made a claim for all descriptors, this is not accurate.

They say I criticized the HCP's qualifications, this is not accurate, I said I didn't consider a paramedic was best qualified to assess someone with ASD, MCI and ME.

etc.

But as far as I can see, no 'legal' errors, and errors of fact is not an error of law.

ETA - and the upper tribunal, if they found for me, would simply direct that my case be looked at again, they wouldn't make a decision in my favour resulting in an award. They simply decide error of law or not.

I could re-apply for PIP, theoretically, but the only reason I got DLA was a years long campaign by people to help and support me, I didn't get on the first, or the 5th, go, it took 6-7 years.

...and I'd be dealing with the same people, in the same system, as I've spent the last, well, nearly 2 years, 18+ months anyway, battling, with help, and losing, with no help.

It's not doable - at some point, probably soon, it's overdue, I'm going to have a similar battle with ESA or probably UC
Click to expand...

I had a terrible time with the transition from DLA to PIP and lost a lot of money but going from incapacity to ESA went smoothly. The system is truly awful but part of that awfulness is the uneven way they judge each case so there’s always the chance of next time being better. Obviously the opposite can also be true but I really do think it’s worth trying again if you feel you can cope.

There’s a Facebook group that helps specifically with ME/CFS benefits, I dont know if you’d found that already but I can send you the link if you’d like.


(Sorry for double post mods)
 
Last time ESA couldn't really have gone better, I got 3 years in the support group with a recommendation that I was unlikely to improve, in the current system that's the equivalent of a lifetime award, you simply can't get a longer award.

That 3 years was up in June.

The report from that assessment was submitted as evidence for PIP, they stated that it had no relevance as they say it said that I was unable to adapt to change and that this was the reason I had been put in the support group. That is not the only thing it said, it covered my ASD and cognitive problems, which are directly relevant to PIP Living.

But......they don't see it that way.

If it's okay I will think about the link, I don't do facebook, and with other things I am over committed ATM, and this seems like an unwinnable battle, even if I had the resources, which I don't, because....life is happening.

But I will think about it when my head clears, or at east when the mining team currently operating in it go to off shift.

Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom