Partially hearing / sighted

I appreciate all the comments and responses I receive. I don't have any expectations regarding the MR as I have read little that allows me to think that it will succeed but will keep trying and will continue to give brief updates.

Many thanks Gay. Yes, I'm afraid there is a general tendency of the MR to simply 'rubber-stamp' the original decision almost regardless of the 'strength' of the claim and any supporting evidence! The latest i've read is that some 80% of MR's do just that and simply confirm the initial decision. This however means that some MRs do actually change the decision in the claimant's favour so hopefully this will happen in your son's case. If not I hope he will appeal the decision, and with the RNiB's help, as they have a high success rate winning some 80% of the appeals they support if I remember correctly and I was of course one of those successful appeals.

Good luck for your son's claim.

Kind regards

Mr B

Hello! As expected, the MR (letter received today) resulted in exactly the same award as the PIP.
This was despite our submitting a considerable amount of additional evidence, including a very detailed letter of support from the RNIB.
At least my son is financially no worse off than he was post-Pip as he has retained the mobility aspect (though he is worse off than when in receipt of DLA, as he also received the lowest daily living allowance.)

We expect now to go to appeal.

For info: the PIP brown envelope arrived 22nd October 2018; the PIP forms were completed by my son and sent off 19th November; the F2F assessment took place (at home) on 17th January; the decision letter was dated 3rd March and received on 11th; the MR forms were posted on 20th March and additional evidence was dispatched a few weeks later including RNIB input. There was no communication from the DWP at any point after submission of MR, apart from one acknowledgement by text. We hoped that we would receive a phone call and I did in fact write to the DWP to ask if they would phone me instead (or as well as my son) but they didn't phone either of us.
The MR decision was received on 4th July 2019, almost 9 months after the arrival of the PIP brown envelope.

Hi Gay

Thank you for letting us know this news although I, and I'm sure everyone else too, are very sorry that the MR did not change the decision in your son's favour. Exactly the same thing happened to me but knowing - like your son and you did too - that such an outcome is the rule rather than the exception regarding MRs didn't make it any the less disappointing! A minority of under 20% of MRs do change the decision in the claimant's favour so we always hope we may be in that minority! Unfortunately the DWP decision makers tend to simply 'rubber stamp' the findings of the examining health care professional. The fact that good supporting medical evidence - even if from a consultant of world eminence - does not support the examining nurse's findings does not mean that the DM will change the decision in the claimant's favour as they will simply ignore that evidence! The same I'm afraid often happens to the evidence the claimant him/herself submits on the application form, this too is often simply ignored by the DWP decision maker in favour again of the HCP's report! This basically happened to me, I'm not sure that the eye consultant whose letter I submitted as evidence was of world eminence as such but they were certainly very highly qualified and worked for an eye hospital which is regarded as a centre of excellence throughout the world for eye disorders!

Given your news I am glad that you are now expecting to appeal this decision because I am sure that the tribunal will know the difference between a specialist doctor and a nurse or physiotherapist who is unlikely to have much- if any - knowledge of eye disorders or disorders which also include problems with vision. It was clear to me that the nurse who did my PIP assessment had never heard of my somewhat rare eye-disorder and completely ignored the fact that I was registered as partially sighted. I actually enclosed evidence of my registration, this too was completely ignored and not even properly recorded as received even though a copy of it was included in the appeal bundle!

Oh dear Gay, I'm sorry I didn't want this to be too long! In conclusion then I'm sure your son and you will know that almost 75% of those appealing a PIP decision win their appeal and that the RNIB have an even higher success rate. They wouldn't have taken on your son's appeal if they didn't think he had a good chance of winning. The RNIB did me proud for my PIP appeal, which I won, and there's a very good chance they'll do the same for your son too.
Do please continue to let us know how your son and you get on as the appeal process starts and continues.

Many thanks again and very best wishes for your son's appeal.

Kind regards

Mr B

Many thanks for your very helpful email. The second DM's report was a little softer in tone than the original PIP one but misrepresented my son's issues to the same degree - eg mentioning that he wears contact lenses, when he only has one eye! The only evidence she supported when making her decision to turn down Daily Living was that contained in the flawed medical report. I should have mentioned that there was one change from the original PIP decision. The medical professional gave my son no points for mobility; this was changed to mobility / standard rate / 10 years by the first DM (for the PIP). The second DM (for the MR) changed this to "ongoing".

My pleasure Gay thanks. I'm glad that at least there's been some movement from the DWP regarding your son's claim though it's not nearly enough of course! There is imo a very good chance that the tribunal will do the rest so that your son will eventually get his full legal entitlement. I suspect that whoever carried out your son's PIP assessment knew little or nothing about eye disorders as was the case with the nurse who did my PIP assessment! As these assessors can receive a salary of £30K or more (paid for ultimately by the hapless tax-payer of course) that's extremely good pay for incompetence isn't it?!

Kind regards

Mr B

Kind regards

Mr B