SSCS1 form PIP tribunal

Hi
Have exhausted self reading stuff from DWP and booklets here, so thought would just ask before doing further form filling. How much, if any, extra evidence should you include with the SSCS1 form requesting a tribunal for PIP? (still turned down after Mandatory reconsideration)

For example, my GP has completed and signed the tick box form of descriptors from this website, since the MR decision letter. She also did a detailed letter which was sent in with form and seems to have been ignored entirely. Gather don't need to include evidence that they already have been sent? But is it worth including the tick box form from GP?

How detailed does the "grounds for appeal" box completion need to be? Should i just say that "no attention or weight has been given to GP and specialist consultants letters, please do so" and "there are many factual inaccuracies in the assessor's report"?

Do i need to go into detail on disagreement with what they've "decided" on each descriptor at this stage, on the SSCS1 form? Or save that for tribunal pack paperwork?

Thank you so much

Thank you, Gordon.
Have such brain ache
So, is a "submission" something you can do once you have the appeal tribunal date?
(Had a mass of evidence with original form, even more with MR, all ignored) So, could just send in form with bare bullet points? (Has to be in soon, so not sure have time to do much...) Then keep gathering information for submission at a later date?

Think have read the example forms, will go look at other documents, thank you

Thanks, Gordon
Okay, I think that makes sense. Shall focus on getting the SSCS1 form in, and then keep on reading and learning and gathering evidence and so on. And await more stuff from DWP. And then submission can go to the tribunal / court (?) as soon as it's sorted after DWP info acquired?
Gather the tribunal don't like to have much last minute new evidence? So submission to be in in plenty of time, and focused on criteria?

Feel like have been learning about PIP all year, but don't think much sinks in, and seems such a ridiculous process especially when they ignore the medical experts. Clearly plenty of people here can empathise with that, so at least am not alone in the storm of paperwork!!

You're a star, Gordon, don't know how you keep up with all this stuff!

I just successfully represented someone at a PIP tribunal yesterday.

I had the same issue where the decision maker had placed almost all weight on the HP's report (PA4) and took hardly any account of the contrary view from the medical experts involved. This was my main grounds of appeal. In my submission I laid out what evidence had been referenced by the HP in their report and then guided the Tribunal to the wider body of evidence referencing each document in my submission. My argument was that this lead to a fuller understanding and therefore a more accurate assessment.

The Tribunal went very smoothly and their decision was to raise the care component up from lower to enhanced and the mobility component from no award to enhanced. They also extended the review period from 1 year in December to 5 years in December.

The convener of the Tribunal thanked me for the clarity of the submission commenting that it made the evidence much easier to follow. The easier you can make their job the more likely that you will achieve your expected result.