- Posts: 88
- Forum
- Members forums
- ESA, PIP and DLA Queries and Results
- PIP Mobility and the new ruling- MR unsuccessful
× Members
PIP Mobility and the new ruling- MR unsuccessful
- Gaddy
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
4 years 4 months ago #242260 by Gaddy
PIP Mobility and the new ruling- MR unsuccessful was created by Gaddy
Hello Gordon/Mods,
I have been awarded 4 points for the Planning and Following a Journey descriptor and after receiving a letter in September saying it had been looked at again there was no change.
With the help of my Mind representative we sent off an MR, highlighting relevant evidence and including my ESA Tribunal decision where I was awarded 9 points for the getting about descriptor.
This week I received the decision letter which was no change- that is no great surprise knowing the percentage of successful MR'S however I would really appreciate your view on the reasoning they have given as follows;
The new ruling only allows me to consider the effect of undertaking a familiar or unfamiliar journey would have on a person when leaving their home on the majority of days. Your customer questionnaire indicates you avoid social situations and feel very isolated, When you go out you must be accompanied but you avoid going out most days due to your severe mental health conditions. Therefore as you are not leaving your home on the majority of days the new MH judgement cannot be applied.
I will be seeing my representative after Christmas but in the meantime would appreciate your thoughts on how they have applied the descriptor. Should I not have scored for the not being able to undertake any journey when applying the logic they have used or is it me not understanding correctly. I am obsessing about it at the moment so your view would help!
Many thanks
'
I have been awarded 4 points for the Planning and Following a Journey descriptor and after receiving a letter in September saying it had been looked at again there was no change.
With the help of my Mind representative we sent off an MR, highlighting relevant evidence and including my ESA Tribunal decision where I was awarded 9 points for the getting about descriptor.
This week I received the decision letter which was no change- that is no great surprise knowing the percentage of successful MR'S however I would really appreciate your view on the reasoning they have given as follows;
The new ruling only allows me to consider the effect of undertaking a familiar or unfamiliar journey would have on a person when leaving their home on the majority of days. Your customer questionnaire indicates you avoid social situations and feel very isolated, When you go out you must be accompanied but you avoid going out most days due to your severe mental health conditions. Therefore as you are not leaving your home on the majority of days the new MH judgement cannot be applied.
I will be seeing my representative after Christmas but in the meantime would appreciate your thoughts on how they have applied the descriptor. Should I not have scored for the not being able to undertake any journey when applying the logic they have used or is it me not understanding correctly. I am obsessing about it at the moment so your view would help!
Many thanks
'
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 51061
4 years 4 months ago #242263 by Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic PIP Mobility and the new ruling- MR unsuccessful
Gaddy
The DM is correct but I still think that there is an opportunity for you to challenge the Decision as they appear to have contradicted themselves in their explanation of the Decision.
So the current legally binding guidance for the Going Out activity, as opposed to the DWP guidance which is not legally binding, is that a claimant must be able to undertake a journey in order for their ability to follow a route to be considered and conversely, for their problems following a route to be considered then by definition they must have left their home.
So, Descriptor (e) is considered to be mutually exclusive with Descriptors (d) and (f).
However, your DM in their reasons has opened an opportunity for further challenge. I assume you have scored for (b) as they have decided that you need prompting to undertake a journey but the guidance I mentioned above does not include (b) so either;
- as (b) does not mean that you cannot go out, just that you need prompting to do so, you can still be assessed for (d) and (e).
or
- they accept as the DM's reasons appear to state, that you cannot go out and therefore you should score for (e).
You must choose one or the other to pursue further at appeal, you cannot argue both of these options.
I hope this is not too confusing.
Gordon
The DM is correct but I still think that there is an opportunity for you to challenge the Decision as they appear to have contradicted themselves in their explanation of the Decision.
So the current legally binding guidance for the Going Out activity, as opposed to the DWP guidance which is not legally binding, is that a claimant must be able to undertake a journey in order for their ability to follow a route to be considered and conversely, for their problems following a route to be considered then by definition they must have left their home.
So, Descriptor (e) is considered to be mutually exclusive with Descriptors (d) and (f).
However, your DM in their reasons has opened an opportunity for further challenge. I assume you have scored for (b) as they have decided that you need prompting to undertake a journey but the guidance I mentioned above does not include (b) so either;
- as (b) does not mean that you cannot go out, just that you need prompting to do so, you can still be assessed for (d) and (e).
or
- they accept as the DM's reasons appear to state, that you cannot go out and therefore you should score for (e).
You must choose one or the other to pursue further at appeal, you cannot argue both of these options.
I hope this is not too confusing.
Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gaddy
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gaddy
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 88
4 years 4 months ago #242265 by Gaddy
Replied by Gaddy on topic PIP Mobility and the new ruling- MR unsuccessful
Thank you Gordon for that clarification- I was thinking along the same lines but wanted to make sure I was understanding it correctly. And you
are correct I scored for needing prompting which infers they accept I do go out- and I have never stated otherwise- that should be the route I take. I hope my Representative agrees!
The other issue I need to be sure of is that by appealing this decision they will look at the mobility descriptor only rather than the whole award- I was told this was the case with the MR. I have enhanced daily living, 17 points so a little bit of wriggle room, but the review process will likely commence August/September next year. If my award was at risk I think it would be sensible to live with the decision and try and turn it around then. Thanks again and enjoy the Christmas holiday
are correct I scored for needing prompting which infers they accept I do go out- and I have never stated otherwise- that should be the route I take. I hope my Representative agrees!
The other issue I need to be sure of is that by appealing this decision they will look at the mobility descriptor only rather than the whole award- I was told this was the case with the MR. I have enhanced daily living, 17 points so a little bit of wriggle room, but the review process will likely commence August/September next year. If my award was at risk I think it would be sensible to live with the decision and try and turn it around then. Thanks again and enjoy the Christmas holiday
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 51061
4 years 4 months ago #242268 by Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic PIP Mobility and the new ruling- MR unsuccessful
Gaddy
It's not the case for either but I would expect a Tribunal to only look in detail at the Mobility component unless there is something fundamentally wrong with the Daily Living award but if this is the case then the Judge in charge of your appeal must issue a warning and give you an opportunity to withdraw your appeal.
Gordon
It's not the case for either but I would expect a Tribunal to only look in detail at the Mobility component unless there is something fundamentally wrong with the Daily Living award but if this is the case then the Judge in charge of your appeal must issue a warning and give you an opportunity to withdraw your appeal.
Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gaddy
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 88
4 years 4 months ago #242271 by Gaddy
Replied by Gaddy on topic PIP Mobility and the new ruling- MR unsuccessful
That's very useful to know Gordon and I think I feel on that basis I should go ahead with an appeal. Your clarification has helped me to feel I now know what direction to take so thank you for that, much appreciated. Happy Christmas
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gaddy
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 88
4 years 1 month ago #245271 by Gaddy
Replied by Gaddy on topic PIP Mobility and the new ruling- MR unsuccessful
Hello BIS/All
Carrying on from my previous posts and decision to appeal today I phoned the Tribunal service to try and get an update- the DWP have not responded to the first request for the bundle of papers to be sent.
The Judge has given them an extension to the 1sr April to provide the papers- that's quite a long extension considering they should have been sent by the middle of February but I gather totally normal procedure.
Waiting times for Sutton Courts are currently 17-20 weeks so I am about 7 weeks in, I have been assured my appeal listing will not change because of the lack of papers and I will have time to prepare.
Frustrating,, been to appeal several times in the past though not for PIP and not experienced the bundle no show before.
Just wonder do the DWP get an extension on an extension to provide the bundle or can an appeal go forward without it?
Thanks
Carrying on from my previous posts and decision to appeal today I phoned the Tribunal service to try and get an update- the DWP have not responded to the first request for the bundle of papers to be sent.
The Judge has given them an extension to the 1sr April to provide the papers- that's quite a long extension considering they should have been sent by the middle of February but I gather totally normal procedure.
Waiting times for Sutton Courts are currently 17-20 weeks so I am about 7 weeks in, I have been assured my appeal listing will not change because of the lack of papers and I will have time to prepare.
Frustrating,, been to appeal several times in the past though not for PIP and not experienced the bundle no show before.
Just wonder do the DWP get an extension on an extension to provide the bundle or can an appeal go forward without it?
Thanks
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: Gordon, Gary, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, jimmck, Chris