Feeling uneasy about support with pip application

Gordan, of course, I understand this. however i wasn't asking what to definately include or not.
let me ask a more specific question. do yu think including content like your document arguing the meaning of descriptors e.g where you quote the response document maybe worthsubmitting as it will help influence a tribunal about what the meaning of those descriptors are? I think it would be worth it since i dont think they will research the matter and only go by the material they read in the conflicting material. do you agree with then that in theory it would be worth submitting that documenr?

thanks

Hi.

Im doing a paper appeal because I think the paper evidence i quite strong and my case is mostly a error of law one.

However you can never be sure so In my submission, would it be ok for me to ask the judge if they felt the current paper evidence wasnt sufficient to get an increased award, then they should change it to an oral hearing? Is that acceptable and would it be accomodated?

thanks

Hi. I am confused about descriptor d in Activity 11. You have told me to show, when I make journeys, I need to show how someone can help me during the journey in order to satisfy the descriptor. E.g. If one was to keep falling over, maybe someone else could support them.

However on another website I have read that you should view the desciptor as follows:

“Are you the majority of the time able to follow a unfamiliar journey on your own, safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and in a reasonable time period?”

I think this means can you follow a route reliably?(regardless of if somebody is with you). If as a consequence of a journey , one will get symptoms, become unwell and become unable to repeat journeys. Therefore they cannot make unfamiliar journeys reliably and will not perform them most of the time. Would submitting this then be sufficient to meet the descriptor 11 d or does one need to show that a person does actually need to be with them when outside? I do arguably have support needs when on a journey, however the previous description summarises my case - better to stay at home. i find it odd that the person who can go out with someones help gets points, however the one who doesnt go out most of the time because of symptoms can't. However he is not so severely precluded that 11 e applies although he certainly cant do the activity reliably. What would the correct descriptor for such a person be?

How long is a familiar and unfamilair journey? Are they both a 5 minute walk in a residential area? Or would they include going into places e.g shops to ask for directions?

Thanks

The reliability test is defined as safely etc.

If you need someone to help you in order to satisfy the descriptor you should say so and describe how they help etc. You don't need to do this if you can show how you don't meet the conditions for completing the test scenario without involving someone else. Ie I can't do this reliably so I never go out. Don't get bogged down in the logic or thought process behind the form. It isn't logical. It is designed to catch people out and get the benefits bill down by denying sick/disabled people benefits.

You may be over analysing this, possibly through the stress of the process. If you follow the advice given you will have the best chance of success but you must have confidence in yourself to do this and see it through.