PIP preparing for MR

IMHO always give chapter, verse, subsection, paragraph etc about "safely, to an acceptable standard, as often as required and in a reasonable time" for each descriptor. They won't love you for it but it will be there ready for the Tribunal judge that way. Follow the B&W guidance as to what these mean for each descriptor. When completing our daughter's form I wrote them on a card in marker pen and propped it up in front of me.
Denby

denby wrote: IMHO always give chapter, verse, subsection, paragraph etc about "safely, to an acceptable standard, as often as required and in a reasonable time" for each descriptor. They won't love you for it but it will be there ready for the Tribunal judge that way. Follow the B&W guidance as to what these mean for each descriptor. When completing our daughter's form I wrote them on a card in marker pen and propped it up in front of me.
Denby

I have done just that. I have decided to add the law and case examples in my submission of my reconsideration letter in case they have no idea what it means. Should be interesting to see the answer. It's very passive-aggressive but at this point, I don't know what else I can do to get through to them but having said that I understand where Gary is coming from but to me, that thinking doesn't take into account realible factor.

SO i just got back the consultation report and thinking how best to tackle the justification for descriptor choice.
managing therapy award 0 points she has cited the while I express low mood and cognitive impairments I am on no medication for this and no mental health team input. I also do not sound withdrawn but alert and have adequate cognition, insight and concentration. Also, I use a crutch and phone indicating grip so I should have no issue opening the medication.

It's taking everything in my power not to attack her but I know it won't get me far.
Would the best way to challenge this is to explain despite not receiving treatment, its been acknowledged History, current medication, social and occupation history as well as functional history. The supporting evidence has urged the GP to get me to help with my mental health which has not been done which is a failure on their part and it would be counter-intuitive to dismiss how my mental health is affected because I am not receiving the help. Also isn't the criteria for some of the descriptor still apply whether you receive aid or not. Also isn't the use of crutch and phone nonsensical as she hasn't specified the usage makes it sound like I'm always on my phone and walking around on crutches despite here writing I spent most in my time in bed and wife dealing most my medication. Also, this doesn't necessarily invalidate the reliability test?
Ther is a lot of shorthand I don't understand such as MH, CH, MSE, FH and SOH

... and OPD is Overwhelming Psychological Distress which is what they specialise in causing....

Just an update, they finally got round to doing the MR although I don't think they read it but they did award exactly 12 points which weren't hard as it was 1 point I needed,
I'm now getting Enhanced for both,

Although they didn't look at the decision length again and backdated from the date of renewal instead of the earlier date of change of circumstances.

So I'm not completely done with them yet.