A tribunal has had its decision overturned after it covertly used Google Maps to wrongly accuse a claimant of giving exaggerated and unreliable evidence.
The claimant was diagnosed with anxiety and depression, COPD, menopause, liver problems and panic attacks. She scored no points at all following a PIP assessment carried out by a nurse.
A mandatory reconsideration produced the same result.
The claimant then attended an appeal tribunal which awarded her 10 points for mobility, leading to an award of the lower rate. However, they found the claimant scored just four points for daily living, dismissing most of her claim on the grounds that they did not find her a credible witness.
In their written reasons for their decision, they noted that:
“The tribunal found that much of Mrs [YC's] oral evidence to the tribunal was exaggerated and not credible. Examples included saying that the local shop that she goes to is 5 doors from her house (using Google maps and taking clear instructions as to which shop it was — the VG shop which has a post office inside and other basic food stuffs — we were able to establish that this shop is 0.3 miles from her home and not 5 doors away)…”
They even cast doubt on the claimant’s partner’s truthfulness because he said that he could walk to the same shop in two minutes on his own but it would take ten minutes when accompanying the claimant. The tribunal found that “His evidence was also not credible unless he runs to the shop, given that Google states six minutes at an average walking pace.”
What the tribunal did not tell the claimant at the time, but did record in their evidence was that they had checked the distance on Google Maps during a break in the hearing, but had not told the claimant they had done so. This meant that she was not given a chance to respond to their covert research.
In fact, the tribunal had identified entirely the wrong shop on Google Maps and, because they kept their research secret, the claimant was not able to point this out to them.
The claimant went on to appeal the decision to the upper tribunal where the judge held that: “The shop in question was 130 metres away and not 0.3 miles and the failure to give the parties the opportunity to make submissions as to the google maps evidence was material . . . By not allowing the representative or the claimant to make submissions regarding the evidence the tribunal used, the proceedings were not fair in that the claimant was not able to make representations on that material evidence and was therefore unable to effectively participate in the proceedings . . .”
The judge overturned the original decision and sent the case back to a different first tier tribunal for a new hearing.
We’ve inserted a brief additional section in the members’ Guide to PIP Claims and Reviews on measuring distances. We are now advising that if you detail specific journeys in a claim or review, you should consider including precise addresses and give the exact distances using Google Maps if you are able to do so. (To measure distances on Google Maps, just right click at your start point, select measure distance, then left click at any turns until you reach your end point). We’ve also highlighted the unreliability of the DWP’s suggestion of bus lengths as a unit of measurement.
You can download a copy of the full decision from this link.
