Pip review l

Lala

I don't have a good answer, it should be, but I can't guarantee it, was the revised Decision based on information that you supplied as part of the MR or the DWP taking another look at the information supplied with the PIP2?

If the former then I think you should consider whether to include the MR information with the new form, if the latter then you may be able to just complete the form,

The bottom line is that you need to be comfortable with what you send in.

Gordon

Lala125 wrote: Hi Gordon,
With my MR I wrote for each section why I think they got it wrong for example explaining how that area affected me in more detail, plus a very detailed letter from my doctor.

SO do you think that you MR letter made the difference or did it just make the DM look more closely at the information that was already there?

Gordon

Lala125 wrote: I’ll be very interested to hear on the pros and cons of filling in the pip review form with “ no change” and those that filled in “no change” plus a detailed explanation of the difficult in doing the task.
Was you sent for a f2f and did you get an award.
I’m on the boarder line of what to do. I now have my results for my bladder and my MRI scan for my neck and shoulder so that will be included as before I had no proof. Other from that I’m still the same no change in how the areas affect me.
Thanks in advance.

The primary issue is the lack of consistency with how reviews are done. In principle marking no change should result in the same award but lots of member's have found that it does not.

Completing the Review form is all about finding balance! If your PIP2 was weak in some areas then proving more content on the AR1 form may help to fill in the gaps, conversely providing more information may actually highlight inconsistencies in the original information.

Providing additional information will make it more likely that a face to face will be required, although marking "no change" in no way guarantees that you will avoid one.

Lastly, the person looking at your information may simply have a different view of the information that the one who originally looked at it.

Gordon