- Posts: 59
× Members
PIP PA4 Consultation report form
- jim555
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
5 years 3 months ago #242507 by jim555
PIP PA4 Consultation report form was created by jim555
I have a question relating to my PA4 form made in may 2017.
Can someone please confirm the exact, descriptor wording of the mobility activities 11. Planning and following journeys, applicable to claimants in May 2017 or around that time frame?
I am particularly interested in the 11 f descriptor wording.
On my PA4 form it lists 11f as "Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, assistance dog or an orientation aid".
I'm quite sure at the time in question, the descriptor should have been worded differently, " For reasons other than psychological distress cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid".
My question is, if the correct wording of the descriptor included, "For reasons other than psychological distress" (may 2017) and on my PA4 the descriptor was worded differently excluding these words... Is there any error in law argument, or error at time of awarding decision i could fight at appeal tribunal? is it not, important and relevant, misinformation at the time of an award. Contributed to claimants rights and confusion and prevented me appealing the descriptor awarded, at that point in time?
My other question is, has anyone on here been awarded PIP mobility 11f around may 2017, and can confirm how the descriptor awarded was worded both on their decision letter and also on their PA4 report? Did they match or did they contradict one another, involving the wording "Reasons other than psychological distress"?
Any input from you guys would be really helpful to me... thanks.
Can someone please confirm the exact, descriptor wording of the mobility activities 11. Planning and following journeys, applicable to claimants in May 2017 or around that time frame?
I am particularly interested in the 11 f descriptor wording.
On my PA4 form it lists 11f as "Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, assistance dog or an orientation aid".
I'm quite sure at the time in question, the descriptor should have been worded differently, " For reasons other than psychological distress cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid".
My question is, if the correct wording of the descriptor included, "For reasons other than psychological distress" (may 2017) and on my PA4 the descriptor was worded differently excluding these words... Is there any error in law argument, or error at time of awarding decision i could fight at appeal tribunal? is it not, important and relevant, misinformation at the time of an award. Contributed to claimants rights and confusion and prevented me appealing the descriptor awarded, at that point in time?
My other question is, has anyone on here been awarded PIP mobility 11f around may 2017, and can confirm how the descriptor awarded was worded both on their decision letter and also on their PA4 report? Did they match or did they contradict one another, involving the wording "Reasons other than psychological distress"?
Any input from you guys would be really helpful to me... thanks.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 51287
5 years 3 months ago #242525 by Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic PIP PA4 Consultation report form
James
The wording in 2017 is as it is now.
"f. Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid.!
The whole point of the legal Decision was that it ruled the changes made by the DWP to the Descriptor as illegal, the review was commissioned to look at Decisions made under the illegal wording to see whether a different award could be made under the original wording which was clarified by a UTT Decision.
So, there is no Error of Law argument to be made as the review Decision has been made using the correct wording.
Gordon
The wording in 2017 is as it is now.
"f. Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid.!
The whole point of the legal Decision was that it ruled the changes made by the DWP to the Descriptor as illegal, the review was commissioned to look at Decisions made under the illegal wording to see whether a different award could be made under the original wording which was clarified by a UTT Decision.
So, there is no Error of Law argument to be made as the review Decision has been made using the correct wording.
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.
- jim555
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 59
5 years 3 months ago #242541 by jim555
Replied by jim555 on topic PIP PA4 Consultation report form
thanks again Gordon for your time and response. much appreciated. I have a query that I am hoping to clarify.
I would like to know what dates, (start dates to end dates please) was the PIP Mobility planning and following a journey descriptor inclusive of the words "For reasons other than psychological distress". I presume from an accurate answer I can then figure out the alternative time period was excluding those words...
I am referring to the actual point in time where Pip assessors and decision makers were making award decisions for claimants before, during and after the ongoing mh court case rulings. (Therefore basing their decisions on the current wording of the descriptor applicable)
Am I correct in assuming DWP added the wording/ meaning " For reasons other than OPD" to the mobility descriptors around nov 2016? (hence the review and backdate to this date?) ... What date was the descriptor wording overruled and DWP ordered remove the wording "OPD" from the descriptors? I believe the mh judgement was around feb 2018?
am i wrong im assuming all PIP mobility claims being decided between nov 2016 and feb 2018 would have been based on the descriptors including the words "For reasons other than OPD"?
Did the wording get added, removed then added again then removed? Specific dates would be most appreciated if anyone can provide me with this information? Cheers
I would like to know what dates, (start dates to end dates please) was the PIP Mobility planning and following a journey descriptor inclusive of the words "For reasons other than psychological distress". I presume from an accurate answer I can then figure out the alternative time period was excluding those words...
I am referring to the actual point in time where Pip assessors and decision makers were making award decisions for claimants before, during and after the ongoing mh court case rulings. (Therefore basing their decisions on the current wording of the descriptor applicable)
Am I correct in assuming DWP added the wording/ meaning " For reasons other than OPD" to the mobility descriptors around nov 2016? (hence the review and backdate to this date?) ... What date was the descriptor wording overruled and DWP ordered remove the wording "OPD" from the descriptors? I believe the mh judgement was around feb 2018?
am i wrong im assuming all PIP mobility claims being decided between nov 2016 and feb 2018 would have been based on the descriptors including the words "For reasons other than OPD"?
Did the wording get added, removed then added again then removed? Specific dates would be most appreciated if anyone can provide me with this information? Cheers
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 51287
5 years 3 months ago #242543 by Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic PIP PA4 Consultation report form
James
The dates are in our PIP Claim guide but they are not relevant to your appeal, whilst the original Decision in May 2017 may have been affected by the changed wording, the Decision resulting from the review was not and it is that you are challenging not the Decision made in 2017.
So you are challenging a Decision based on
"f. Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid."
Not any other wording.
Gordon
The dates are in our PIP Claim guide but they are not relevant to your appeal, whilst the original Decision in May 2017 may have been affected by the changed wording, the Decision resulting from the review was not and it is that you are challenging not the Decision made in 2017.
So you are challenging a Decision based on
"f. Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid."
Not any other wording.
Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: jim555
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- jim555
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 59
5 years 3 months ago #242546 by jim555
Replied by jim555 on topic PIP PA4 Consultation report form
And the know on implications of claimants not given correct wording of descriptors and therefore dismissing certain descriptors as applicable to them is irrelevant? no opportunity to source further evidence, no option to appeal the decision at that time?
I highlight all this because i am sure OPD was included in my descriptor options at the time of my assessment and award but when I look at my PA4 form the "OPD" wording is absent, therefore representation of misinformation..? potential repercussions with error of law etc.? I don't know just clutching at straws with all this stuff. Not got 2k for a solicitor so just trying my best to understand all potential areas of success at tribunal.
Apologies
I highlight all this because i am sure OPD was included in my descriptor options at the time of my assessment and award but when I look at my PA4 form the "OPD" wording is absent, therefore representation of misinformation..? potential repercussions with error of law etc.? I don't know just clutching at straws with all this stuff. Not got 2k for a solicitor so just trying my best to understand all potential areas of success at tribunal.
Apologies
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 51287
5 years 3 months ago #242549 by Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic PIP PA4 Consultation report form
James
As I said, you are not challenging that Decision, I accept that the situation is far from ideal but you can only challenge what the law allows you to.
So if you believe that you can show that on the majority of days in 2017 you would be able to leave your house but then unable to follow a route to a familiar place then argue the point at appeal but if you evidence only supports you being unable to go out during that time then you should consider whether an appeal is the way to go.
If you believe that you can now argue that (f) is the appropriate Descriptor then you do have the option of reporting a Change of Circumstances but be aware that it will result in a full review of your claim, a new PIP2 and almost certainly a face to face assessment, the new Decision will supersede your existing award whatever it is.
Gordon
As I said, you are not challenging that Decision, I accept that the situation is far from ideal but you can only challenge what the law allows you to.
So if you believe that you can show that on the majority of days in 2017 you would be able to leave your house but then unable to follow a route to a familiar place then argue the point at appeal but if you evidence only supports you being unable to go out during that time then you should consider whether an appeal is the way to go.
If you believe that you can now argue that (f) is the appropriate Descriptor then you do have the option of reporting a Change of Circumstances but be aware that it will result in a full review of your claim, a new PIP2 and almost certainly a face to face assessment, the new Decision will supersede your existing award whatever it is.
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.
Moderators: Gordon, Gary, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, Chris, David