Outcome of twins (2) DLA to PIP applications

I came to the forum , printed off every guide to retain hard copies for reference.

The (likely) last post (for the foreseeable future) I will make here I wanted to share not just the outcomes but what I have ascertained through experience.

My daughters DLA to PIP application (the first of two I had to complete) went through seamlessly. Paper based without any interventions what so ever.
Enhanced for both.Award period was ongoing.

Twin brother whose PIP application was submitted a week after- no end of hassles starting with a phone assessment by an obviously biased and adversarial halfwitt.

Had I not persued that by calling the people formerly known as ATOS and raising a complaint about it- I have no doubt what so ever that my sons PIP claim would have been subject to the wrong handling (as it was at that point already).
Luckily for me, I got a fair minded person on the end of the phone who was prepared to file the complaint.
From that from what I gather is a highly unorthodox situation developed whereby I received a call for a new phone assessment with 48 hours- somethign I didnt know could happen.

Again, lucky that this time it was a learning disabilities female nurse who very clearly had professional experiences dealing with learning disabilities.

I was told quite clearly as that phone cal concluded that the recommendation was enhanced for both and she was going to do what she could to secure an onging award but that the DWP ultimately decides.

The award decision came through enhanced care, standard mobility. A thoroughly stupid decision which flouted the evidence.

The day the award letter came through ( I already knew the decision as I'd called the PIP people wonderign when to expect the decision letter), I instigated the mandatory recon. Something which in my experience of arond 15 years of DLA applications, MR's and tribunal appeals on behalf of my kids, has always been ( and I stress that this is oly my own experience) a mandatory waste of time.

I simply pointed out the DWP's decision contradicted the medical officers assessment and statement.

The MR was completed with less than 2 days tunraround. The new MR officer altered that wording copy and pasted the rest of the how I arrived at this decision, and inserted in between the words cannot undertake any journey- "the majority of the time", then sent it off back to me stating the original decision held.

Total amount of time spent reviewing the actual evidence- well considering there was not only the PIP application and the additional 50 handwritten additional pages I included, plus the actual medical documents and supporting evidence- and the turnaround time frame for the MR DWP rep to have arrived at the decision I was and am satisfied nobody bothered reassessing anything. There was an intended outcome and the DWP was attempting to make the application fit that desired outcome.

I filed the appeal.

Because I know my children and their lives I am ultimately best placed to understand the impact their conditions have upon them. The result of this is that I have the benefit I suppose of knowing unquestionably that each of my kids should receive enhanced for both because they each live the lives they do are impacted as extremely as they individually are and to be blunt- only a shyster or an utter crettin would argue either of them should receive anything else but enhanced rate on both counts.

I received a phone call from soeone from the DWP- which I almost didnt take because I usually dont answer withheld numbers.

I will confess right now to refusing to be caught up in the fine points of definitions for PIP. I will also confess I have zero tollerance for what seems to me to be intentionally problematically worded "descriptors".

I am an intelligent and educated woman. Very capable of raising twins each with extremely severe disabilities. After reading the information supplied with the PIP applications about descriptors etc, I found it intentionally convoluted and clearly designed to create an application process that made the applicant (or those tasked with filling it in on behalf of someone else) immediately under stress and buying into the notion that if you dont receive the correct award it is some how your fault for failing to provide the correct information in a very narrowly worded language.

The conversation ultimately boiled down to this: I wanted to call you having seen your sons PIP award and seeing that the daily living/care points were one of the highest Ive ever seen and that was unusual that he would then also be awarded standard mobility.

Me: forgive me, Im taken aback as I didnt know the DWP may call me after I filed the tribunal appeal, to discuss this. The original award goes against the evidence supplied. Ive sat through several tribunal hearings, I dont pretend to be fluent in the defintions and descriptors for PIP but what I do know is the extent to which my son is impacted every day. I know that merits enhanced mobility and I have no problem attending the tribunal hearing for my son and being quizzed about anything at all because I know what he lives every day, how he lives every day and the limits of his life every day and there is absolutely no shadow of a doubt that this merits enhanced mobility that a panel will most definately be able to see because I will simply tell them the truth.

I am changing your sons award from standard to enahcned mobility.

Ok, thank you.

It was interesting to me to hear that a reason behind the DWP call was the points awarded for daily living for my son because frankly, they were less than accurate and were they to have been an honest representation of his actual daily life theyd have been probably somewhere approaching 25% higher than they were but hearing from a DWP rep that the very much lowballed points rating my son was given, ranked as notably high as to make it quite rare to be seen ever, clearly opened the door for that DWP rep to enquire with me over the phone, about the validity of their own mobility award rate.

I am aware of the passive aggressive threat of being asked to weigh up challenging a DWP award because theres a risk it might go down as opposed to accurately reflect an individuals actual reality.

The very simple fact is that a properly maintained assessment process should not be able to down grade an award from what that same system originally assessed was the right award- unless it accepts that it actually isnt properly run.

In short- if you caution people from querying the original award because it might have been wrong in the first place- you cannot uphold the soundness of any decision you arrive at because youre already acknowledging the chance the system got it wrong (and awarded you more than you should have been given).

It is amazing to me that perfectly rational, intelligent professionals will repeat this over and over again- overlooking what it actually means. Dont challenge the decision on the premise the DWP got it wrong, because they actually might have gotten it wrong.

The outcome in terms of actual award reflects what it should for my two children now. However not because it did its actual job, but because it is an adversarial system which employs fear and intimidation among its tactics and against whom only the most tenacious (with a degree of luck thrown in too) reliably secure what is actually an accurate reflection of what they are entitled to.

I sincerely wish everyone navigating the PIP process the very best of luck.