PA4 "balance of probability" & denying brain fog due to no separate diagnosis

Evening.

I posted recently about my PIP telephone assessment and the assessor not having/using the pre-tribunal decision when completing the report. The 7 points that have dropped this time for daily living are the same 7 that were awarded to me by a decision maker after telephoning me and clarifying some information. As suggested, I wrote a letter addressed to the decision maker informing them of this error but unfortunately the letter wasn't in time and the decision was made a couple of days after the letter was sent.

As I expected, the decision maker has gone with the recommendations in the report, omitting these 7 points, although they have made the award length 3 years rather than the 18 months suggested in the report (previous award was 5 years and my conditions are all incurable and more likely to deteriorate rather than improve).

I am in the process of compiling my MR and have a couple of questions.

In the reasoning for the descriptors that are recommended for 4 of the daily living activities, (all 4 are ones that I dropped points on and the incorrect previous descriptor has been stated), the phrase "therefore the balance of probability suggests that descriptor x is probable" is used ( on 2 of the activities the abbreviation BOP is using so I am assuming this means balance of probability as it has been omitted from the list of abbreviations used). I'm a little confused as to what exactly is meant by this as it seems a little vague. Can anyone shed any light on what they mean by it?

Also, on the majority of the activities, the same (long)explanation is copied and pasted into the reported restrictions not supported section, dismissing my brain fog and memory issues as they are not a " global cognitive diagnosis" . The same explanation also states that I had adequate general memory and concentration for the duration of the 1hr 35min call. This is despite acknowledging that I had notes, prompts and my forms in front of me and that the brain fog is is from my conditions rather than a separate condition in the functional history. Does the fact that it is just repeatedly copied and pasted have any impact and also, surely a 1hr 37m call does not fit in with majority of days. Are these points worth including?

The healthcare professional was only allocated my assessment prior to the call and was 37mins late calling as she had used that time to read my paperwork. Is this worth including in the MR as 37mins doesn't seem long enough to read through the paperwork.

Lastly, I recorded the assessment myself (I had informed them in advance that I was and the assessor was aware and was unable to record it as I had requested as the equipment was not working. I now have a transcription of the phone call, can I print this out and highlight extracts to send with my MR as evidence?

Apologies for the long post and thanks for reading.

Hi Bis, thanks for your reply.

I'm in the process of using the challenging a medical report guide to formulate my MR and have detailed which of the activities/descriptors I disagree with and why.

I had to challenge the decision on my last review with the assessment taking place in May 2019. As mentioned in a previous post, the MR was unsuccessful and I continued to appeal the decision with a court date being set. A few weeks prior to this date in Feb 2020 I received a telephone call from a decision maker asking to clarify a few things. At the end of the call she informed me that she was awarding me additional points that meant I would get the enhanced daily living rate rather than the standard that was given in the original decision and the appeal ended with her awarding enhanced daily living rather than standard for 6 years.

The 7 points that I have lost this time round (dropping me back down to 11 points and standard) are the same 7 additional points that the decision maker awarded pre-tribunal. The activities that these points relate to are all the ones were the balance of probability phrase has been used and the evidence used to make the decision on each activity is the PA4 from May 2019 rather than the decision maker's revised award from 2020. Can I say that this is inaccurate as the evidence from Feb 2020 has been omitted from the evidence? I do also have examples of why I think a different descriptor is more appropriate. The guides seem to only refer to evidence provided by me being omitted rather than DWP paperwork being omitted.

Also, for washing and bathing, the health professional has stated that because I can feed myself I can raise my arms so it is unlikely that I cannot wash my torso. In both my AR1 form and during the assessment I explained that I can only wash the front of my body and cannot reach round to wash my back even with long-handled aids. Should this mean that the descriptor of 4F needs assistance to wash between shoulders and waist applies as I cannot wash all of my torso on any occasion?

Thanks again for your help.

Great thanks for your advice.