PIP tribunal appeal advice re MH court ruling

yes, you are correct in what you are saying. I didn't know that the tribunal only base their decision based on the time of the original award. There is evidence to support 1f descriptor at time of original award but less favourably than 1e based on the majority of days. I also don't think it seems right that they base it on the time of the award when the pip descriptor was much different to that after the MH court ruling. My point is there was clear evidence obtained in 2017 that possibly indicates a need to request more information relating to 1f criteria but no request was made. Also if the evidence is there now or from the point of award to present for satisfying 1f a different descriptor, why would it not be awarded if it is clear it is satisfied?
Its like the DWP can disriminate against MH claimants until the judge in a high court corrects them, even then they take their time and make a half hearted attempt to correct their wrongs.

so my stance is that i will find it hard to prove at time of oringinal award i satisfied descriptor 1f opposed to 1e but since then the high court and DWP have moved the goal posts.. now i can prove 1f i satisfy on the majority of days but tribunal wont award me it.

Yes, you are correct in what you say, i just need to give reasons and submit my appeal and then follow up with further info shortly after.

Do you think i should continue with the appeal or give up? I would much prefer to take the easier option but I thought the tribunal would look independently at my case and award accordingly. I think i need to wait until 2021 for my current award to end.

Should i submit and just take the paper based option for an easier life? Is my case complex that an oral hearing would certainly be the best option based on grey areas and obvious points of contention?
Thanks again for your time Gordon,
James

Good morning, today I am putting pen to paper. Fingers crossed I can get a clearer understanding of my situation. Apologies if I annoy anyone. I have a few questions..

1. If at an oral tribunal appeal hearing, I run the risk of losing my current award the Judge must warn me of this and give me the chance to withdraw my appeal... how would this situation play out if one opted for a paper based hearing?

2. In my MR decision section it states, "during the period under consideration" can you tell me exactly what the "period" is please? Start to present date of award, award date only or 3 moths prior and 9 months after award date?

It also states in this section "the medical evidence you have provided (this is recent evidence, 2019 not 2017 around time of original award) so does this confirm "during the period under consideration" includes information and evidence up to the present date?
Surely, if they refer to the period under reconsideration only to be the initial award date or even 3 months before and 9 months after award, they would state this and outright dismiss recently dated evidence?

Is only recently dated evidence applicable if it relates to time periods around the original award date? confused.

3. Gordon, please can you explain further what is important to my case with your response you gave at the beginning of my post please? I am confused, is this good or bad? Do i have a point to argue? etc.

"The current legal situation is that your ability to follow a route (f) cannot be assessed if you are unable to go out and by definition, if you are having problems following a route then you must have left your house".

I am guessing you mean the two descriptors contradict each other? I agree, hence feeling I satisfy f over e on the majority of days as recent evidence supports. Am i missing something more important here?

Thank you for your time, really is much appreciated,

James

Thanks Gordon. Odds are against me then obtaining new evidence now, relating back to circumstances in 2017...
Do you have a rough idea of time frame for tribunal hearings in the southeast? 6 months a typical expectation?