Too many points? An unusual PIP decision dilemma

This is maybe a query you don't see too often!
My son has received his decision on PIP after his DLA award was notified as ending and having attended the medical etc. I have to say it was a much more friendly process than we were anticipating. However, I am in a quandary now, as the HP, and then the DWP decision maker, actually awarded MORE points than I was anticipating (and angling for) in some areas. However in a couple of key areas we got less than we should.

This to me throws up the dilemma of whether I should challenge the points that I think they got wrong i.e. he has no problems with complex budgeting decisions, when I say he does. That's why the DWP recognise me as his appointee and let me handle his award money!

But the places where he scored more than I intended (such as planning and following a journey) means that he could possibly have a change of circumstance sooner, as they rated him worse in several areas. If they had rated him as I intended, he would have stayed on a level for a long time. They will not review him for 10 years, they say.

I have umm-ed and ah-ed over this for a couple of weeks before I have decided to ask your good selves.

We received the decision letter dated on 23rd February, and I have to ask them to reconsider within one month if I am going to. I don't have more evidence to submit as I already sent them 40 pages of evidence to wade through!

Your thoughts would be very welcome

Hi cl281,

Although not entirely clear from your post, if you are stating that your Son's PIP award is acceptable but you think that they may have awarded too many points or points where you would not have expected him to receive any, it would not be advisable to challenge this or submit an MR, as this could result in his award being reduced or lost altogether.

As long as you are happy that the Decision is correct with regards to your Son's identity, there is no need for you to points out discrepancies in the points awarded.

On the premise that you are happy with his award, but have already issued an MR request, I would contact DWP PIP and tell them that you wish to cancel the MR.

bro58

Thanks for your replies. I obviously didn't make myself clear though it seemed clear in my head!
I have not asked for an MR as yet, but am wondering whether I should.

I used the brilliant guides from here (as I have done for years) when I wrote out the forms and additional information. I therefore knew what the descriptors were, what points were allocated to that and therefore what I hoped to achieve from the answers when I wrote them.

So I hoped that they would see that he could not make complex budgeting decisions, and the evidence for that was that a) I am appointed BY THEM to handle his money as he is not capable of it, and b) I gave examples of how he had run out of money when needing to buy food, pay fares, bills etc, because he could not work out what he needed to have in his bank.

When asked this question by the HP, she asked if he paid by direct debit (yes, but set up by me) and therefore (wrongly in my view) assessed he could make complex budgeting decisions. However, he has also had direct debits returned because he could not calculate his money needs when left to try himself.

So that's where I disagree with them.

But on the other hand, from the evidence I submitted and working closely with the descriptors in the B&W guide, they have actually assessed him as worse for some things than I intended.
Do I take the view that they know best? I intended that it should be proved he cannot take an unfamiliar journey without support. However from the evidence and the medical, they concluded he cannot take a familiar journey without support.

I anticipate he may be able to take familiar journeys within the 10 year review period, but he may not take unfamiliar journeys for the full 10 years. By assessing him at the higher need, I could have to declare a change, which I would not if they assessed as I intended.

Basically do I ask them to reassess at a LOWER need? (So I may not have to declare a change) Or take the view that if that's what they think, fair enough.

He has a full award for both components, and it is not borderline.

I am annoyed they got some of it wrong, and bothered that they have awarded some things I did not intend.

Is that any clearer?

cl281 wrote: Thanks for your replies. I obviously didn't make myself clear though it seemed clear in my head!
I have not asked for an MR as yet, but am wondering whether I should.

I used the brilliant guides from here (as I have done for years) when I wrote out the forms and additional information. I therefore knew what the descriptors were, what points were allocated to that and therefore what I hoped to achieve from the answers when I wrote them.

So I hoped that they would see that he could not make complex budgeting decisions, and the evidence for that was that a) I am appointed BY THEM to handle his money as he is not capable of it, and b) I gave examples of how he had run out of money when needing to buy food, pay fares, bills etc, because he could not work out what he needed to have in his bank.

When asked this question by the HP, she asked if he paid by direct debit (yes, but set up by me) and therefore (wrongly in my view) assessed he could make complex budgeting decisions. However, he has also had direct debits returned because he could not calculate his money needs when left to try himself.

So that's where I disagree with them.

But on the other hand, from the evidence I submitted and working closely with the descriptors in the B&W guide, they have actually assessed him as worse for some things than I intended.
Do I take the view that they know best? I intended that it should be proved he cannot take an unfamiliar journey without support. However from the evidence and the medical, they concluded he cannot take a familiar journey without support.

I anticipate he may be able to take familiar journeys within the 10 year review period, but he may not take unfamiliar journeys for the full 10 years. By assessing him at the higher need, I could have to declare a change, which I would not if they assessed as I intended.

Basically do I ask them to reassess at a LOWER need? (So I may not have to declare a change) Or take the view that if that's what they think, fair enough.

He has a full award for both components, and it is not borderline.

I am annoyed they got some of it wrong, and bothered that they have awarded some things I did not intend.

Is that any clearer?

Hi cl281,

I have already advised you regarding this.

Several members have received points well in excess of what they have expected !

The majority receive far less than expected, and it is very common to see contradictory statements within a PA 4 Medical Report.

If you wish to point what you consider to be discrepancies in the points awarded under risk of him receiving a reduced award or losing the awards altogether that is your choice to make.

bro58

Gordon wrote: cl

You don't say whether your son received the award you were expecting or not?

Are you saying that you did not assess your son as being as bad as the assessor has marked him, or that he cannot meet the criteria that for the Descriptor that has been chosen because he has no problems in that area?

If you have requested an MR then your task is first to show that your son meets the criteria and as a secondary action to argue the contents of the assessors report.

Gordon

Hi Gordon
1. Yes, I did not assess my son as being as bad in a certain area as the assessor and then the Decision Maker marked him.

2. There was a particular area where I said he did not have a need but on examination they decided that he did. I will leave this as a) they decided he did based on their examination, and b) he'll lose those particular points anyway when they remove the points for aids and appliances which is coming in!

He did get the award I was hoping for, but how they got to it was not quite as I intended.