PIP tribunal appeal advice re MH court ruling

Thanks BIS, i feel i am making progress, albeit slowly and not at the desired rate.

Ii have a question in relation to the appeal process and the possible people that could be involved in respect to representative, appointee, advocate, solicitor etc etc. I would just like someone to shed some light on this area if possible...

So at present I have a CAB member willing to be my representative. Thus far I have mentioned my limitations and restrictions in regard to attending an oral hearing in person, so paper based submission is the current understanding and understood by both parties.

The path I would like to explore is if, I could ask the CAB member if they would be willing to attend my oral hearing as my representative on my behalf? Does this happen, can it happen if the CAB member is willing? I am more than happy to cover their travel expenses and anything else involved. I do understand that the chances of successful appeal are significantly higher for oral hearings compared to paper based and also that with a representative your success rate is even higher. Am I right, that if the CAB member agrees to represent me in my absence at an oral hearing my success rate is potentially around 60-70% compared to a dismal 5-19% with the paper based?

I am also wondering if anyone else involved with a review of their mobility award due to the MH court ruling agrees or shares my view on the following..?

- The advantage is very much supporting the DWP in the sense of fairly reviewing old PIP claims relating to the MH court ruling.
- The high court ruled the DWP was discriminating against many mental health claimants and demanded the DWP reviewed and corrected the wrong awards as a result
- At the time of unlawful wording on relevant mobility descriptors, claimants were wrongly awarded incorrect descriptors resulting in incorrect awards.
- Claimants applying or filling out PIP questionairres at this point in time, would have been looking at the relevant descriptors applicable to them and wording their information and obtaining and submitting evidence to support those related circumstances and descriptors.
- The HCP and Decision maker would have been dismissing or not elaborating on potentially relevant information or evidence at the assessment period specifically relating to descriptors including or excluding, OPD relevance, on numerous mobility descriptors.
- At no point of the High court ruling was every potential claimant contacted and asked If they felt their PIP mobility claim could be affected by the changes in law ( take this one on the chin ) but as a result claimants were just expected to accept the DWP made unlawful changes to descriptors resulting in unlawful mobility awards and to just sit back and wait and have faith in the DWP accurately reviewing, asking the claimant for additional evidence if required and trust implicitly, DWP righting all the historical wrongs.
- What penalties or sanctions were imposed by the high court, should DWP not accurately review and apply the correct PIP law to each and every claimant affected? ( If nothing then I should take every review and subsequent MR decision with significant doubt correct law and review was applied accurately. )
- Should DWP not be heavily fined if a claimants case, following on from a MH and RF review- then a MR not awarded- then at a tribunal appeal and claimant be successful and the appeal? How many times can the DWP act unlawfully and discriminate against MH claimants and go unpunished?
- Even if appeal is won at tribunal or even review or MR stage... monetary value i guess can be reinstated/ back dated but what about the access to the mobility scheme many claimants rely heavily upon and the impact of that absence in relation to their already poor mental health, financially and the impact upon, general day to day living?

The above is a few examples but by no means comprehensive. Should the independent tribunal panel at least take these above points into consideration during appeal or am I just in a cloud, way up high with my twisted views and opinions?

Jim

-

How do i go about requesting to the tribunal panel my wish for them to extend the length of my award, should I be successful? I am currently looking at the real possibility of being awarded the enhanced mobility entitlement with just under 12 months left on my award period... Therefore preventing me from a accessing the mobility car I should have been entitled to 3 years previously? Seems quite unfair...

Is it just pot luck if tribunal extend award lengths or do you need to request they consider the option? Anyone had personal experiences?