PIP review (AR1) - HP's report reducing points

Hello Gordon: My sis had a home assessment review. HP's report has substantially reduced the existing enhanced/enhanced award, which if accepted as-is (highly likely,) will reduce the award from that to standard DL.

I will of course request MR in due course based on a number of concerns. The existing award was for physical and mental disability; HR has now reduced all mental health domains that were positively scored to nought (while retaining the 'physical' domain scores - her physical condition having deteriorated since). I believed there was NO CHANGE to her mental disablement.

My question: HP states in her narratives to zero 'mental' scores that claimant is "probably" able to to X, Y or Z (she uses that word repeatedly). In my view "probably" does not conform to the RELIABILITY criteria, which in my opinion goes beyond 'probably'. That is to say, if a claimant can only 'probably' do X they should not be regarded as being able to do it reliably.

While I disagree that sis could even 'probably' function at the level HP suggests, it seems to me the use of this (ill-advised) term is a point of criticism of the HP's report per reliability.

Do you agree, please?

Thanks,

Marcus

Gordon: Thanks. I defined 'probably' as 'more likely than not' - but, as you state, it's defined 'stronger' than that...

What seems to've led the HP to her opinion is that claimant is not under specialist mental health care, as previously, but remains on same meds. That was because the therapist averred claimant was likely as well as she was going to be and although significantly impaired there was no point in further talking therapy. This, of course, does NOT imply improvement in condition, as HP is lazily inferring. (It's like the assumption that claimants who refuse addictive pain meds (opioids) must be 'better' rather than the real reason - concern about addiction!)