× Members

Help over a PIP MH V DWP decision letter please

More
6 years 1 month ago #228506 by MIAMOO
I've had a letter from PIP saying that they aren't changing their decision of no award of mobility due to MH V DWP. The letter reads as though, if I do a MR they will review the whole claim.

Can I ask that they ONLY review the mobility decision due to MH V DWP?

On this letter they say I got 4 points for mobility (which I did) "You need prompting from another person to undertake a journey to avoid causing you 'SIGNIFICANT MENTAL DISTRESS'. This was not how the descriptor was written when I was given it, I got 4 points and it said 'to avoid OVERWHELMING PSYCOLOGICAL DISTRESS'.

They have said I suffer from 'some anxiety and depression' I also have PTSD, dissociation issues, and severe anxiety including panic attacks, which are stated on my original decision letter, I feel they havent even read my forms other than knowing my previous award.
There are many comments on both the assessor report and on the origional desision letter that show I have mobility needs that are relevant to this, should I write a letter and include a copy of each highlighting the comments I want them to consider or is that going too far?
How do I write a letter asking for a MR please? (I dont want to call incase they do the MR without considering all the information I want them to include)
I honestly expected to get a faviourable decision on this, so it has really shocked and upset me.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
6 years 1 month ago #228551 by Gordon
MIAMOO

In principle, they should only review the Mobility component as this was all that was looked at but other members have been told that the whole award could be looked at, nobody has actually posted this happening.

However, the Descriptor you originally scored for and which has now been confirmed was not changed, some were which is why the review was being done, so are you saying that you expected to meet a higher scoring Descriptor but did not because of the changes that were made to those Descriptors?

What Descriptor did you expect to meet?

Gordon

Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: MIAMOO

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
6 years 1 month ago #228631 by MIAMOO
The descriptor that I expected to be awarded was needs accompanying on familiar journeys to avoid OPD, I dont have the form to hand so dont know the exact wording. I was only awarded 4 points, and I expected to get enhanced mobility.

I thought that because they had given me 4 points for needing prompting to avoid OPD, that would mean they accepted OPD is a problem in my case. I disagree with the prompting obviously but I couldnt appeal as they changed the law. But now they changed the 4 point descriptor and removed OPD and put significant distress and said thats what they gave me, when they didnt, if that makes sense?


It just seems really unfair and I'm overly emotional now so I need some advice on what route to take to appeal. I've read your posts and you know your stuff, and how to keep to the point!

My assessor report and award both mention me needing to be accompanied to familiar places, dont use public transport, didnt cope well at interview, etc the assessor even put my stated level of difficulty was consistant with functioning (accompanied on familiar jouney) but I have no cognitive issues therefore could only be awarded prompting.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
6 years 1 month ago #228637 by Gordon
MIAMOO

The Descriptor is not how you describe it, it is about your ability to follow a route!

It may be that your experiencing OPD would prevent you from following the route but it is is not the OPD that is assessed, so as an extreme example, if you suffered OPD but could continue to follow the route then you would not score.

Gordon

Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: MIAMOO, TheMerlin486

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
6 years 1 month ago #228881 by MIAMOO
Ok if I tell you my situation then would you mind advising me on whether I should appeal based on this MH ruling. I have panic attacks and when I am in a public place alone, I dissociate, I become suddenly very dizzy, fuzzy headed and cannot think. I know where I am but I dont feel real. If I am in a supermarket (assuming I made it that far), I cannot continue to shop I abandon the shopping, and have to sit down and call someone. I can always find my way home because I would never attempt to go anywhere more than a 2 or 3 minute walk away, so I go home immediately talking on the phone to whoever I got hold of, . I have a couple of times walked home shaking and in tears. It got to the point I rarely went out because going out alone was unbearable, and because I had no one to go out with me. If I am accompanied the fact that I can be distracted by someone else really helps.
The times I have gone out alone, and then dissociated I am quite poorly for the next few days, with massively increased panic and anxiety, more jumpy and unable to eat and sleep. Luckily now I do have someone who I can go out with when I need to so I havent been in this extreme state for a few months.
After my face to face assessment I had to take extra diazepam to attend, I shook visibly all the way through, and when I left the room I was really ill for 3 or 4 weeks, I dissociated and the time was just a blur. I cannot deal with even moderate stress. The assessor knows all of this, she could see I cannot cope with stress from the assessment. So I assumed that dissociating from stress and then being ill for a few days after would class as opd. It is overwheming, I cannot control it and I cannot function. But I dont know.
Do you think I should appeal the dscision or is this not what the change covers?
Thanks for your time

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
6 years 1 month ago #228919 by Gordon
MIAMOO

I'm sorry but I can't tell you or anybody on the forum whether to appeal or not, there is simply not enough information for me to offer an opinion.

You don't say how often you are affected in this way, to score higher you will need to show that you affected on the majority of days.

As I mentioned in my previous post this about your ability to follow a route, so you need to think about how you could rephrase your problems so that they fit better with this, so in the example from your post you do not mention following a route and you do not explicitly state that when you disassociate that you cannot continue to follow the route, doing so would be important.

You also say that you now rarely go out, whilst you can score higher for being unable to undertake a journey, you need to be cautious about this as you can only score for;

- being unable to undertake a journey, or
- being unable to follow a route

but not both, in fact arguing for one will actually undermine your arguments for the other, so decide what you are aiming for and stick to only arguing that limitation.

Gordon

Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: GordonGaryBISCatherineWendyKellygreekqueenpeterKatherineSuper UserChrisDavid