Tribunal & Legal Challenges - Flawed PIP Assessment

Just wanted to say good luck for Friday, keeping everything crossed for you

Yes, all the best of luck for today. Do let us know how it goes, everything crossed for you!
Anji

Hi, just wanted to update/vent on how the Tribunal went - TLDR It wasn't great!

I don't have a decision yet which I'm surprised and disappointed about. They are going to send it to me in the post so I will hear next week.

There were 3 panel members as I expected, plus the DWP's presenting officer who was watching me like a hawk and constantly stood behind me to keep an eye on me.

It went on for ages. I was mainly grilled by the doctor. I did break down at various times while discussing my condition which was embarrassing and made me a bit confused The panel didn't give me any time to compose myself. They did a break in between.

The first bit went on for an hour, my mum told me when I came out. She thought I had come out to wait for a decision. I told her no, they were taking a break before asking more questions. They had a break of I think 15/20 mins, then told me to come back in for more questions which were this time asked by the disability assessor and the judge and then the DWP lady.

I would describe the panel as very thorough and personally I don't think they 'liked' or 'believed' me. They did the DWP thing of asking me the same question several times. It gave me the impression they didn't believe me. The disability member also said: "I won't ask when you cook for your mum, I will ask when you cook for yourself." which gave me the impression he was trying to catch me out, because at no point have I said I do that. I had to tell him I don't cook for her. He also said something quite judgemental in my opinion. I was trying to explain why I couldn't engage or avoided engaging with people and I said I was a shy person. He said I didn't come across as shy and I came across as confident (this was after I was blowing my nose from crying throughout both sessions). I said: "No, I'm very well educated, that is why I am able to articulate myself and just because I am doing that today, doesn't mean I actively seek out socialising opportunities or people to engage with." Again I'm shocked he said that, he may as well have said "I don't believe you."

The DWP lady had the nerve to ask about my finances. I am self employed with a limited company. She had pulled up my limited company records and asked about me drawing money out of my business. I said those were savings, I had already said that earlier when the judge asked how I was surviving. She said she 'just wanted to check they had the right information', but I believe she was trying to figure out what I had declared to HMRC as I get working tax credit. I wish I had just refused to answer on the basis I wasn't there to discuss my finances now - could I have done that? Not that I have done anything wrong, it just surprised me that she had dug it all out and was asking about it.

When we finally left for the second time and we were outside - I think the second time we were only in there for 20-25 mins max, she asked me if there was anything I wanted to ask her. I said yes, why were you asking about my finances? She just said she wanted to check the information. Why not ask me inside the room if there was anything I wanted to ask her? We were being recorded, maybe that is why. Or she thought I might say something incriminating outside? She was trying to talk to me at each break/be friendly and I refused to engage with her.

Anyway, I know legally I should get the enhanced award, but I really don't know if this panel will grant me it. I explained how my condition/s prevented me from carrying out certain tasks reliably and on the majority of days. At the end I made the point that Gordon said about moving around being for outdoor/outside activities and explained how descriptor 1e should apply and I should therefore be awarded the full 12 points. The judge said: "Yes you are absolutely right on the legal test, that is correct and that is how it applies." He also said something that made me think I would be successful in having the 12 points for that answer but I can't remember how he put that. I was pleased to hear something positive anyway, because overall they didn't strike me as positive, friendly or 'on my side'. If anything they just came over as they didn't believe me. I think the doctor said something I hadn't said as well, and I had to correct her.

Another thing is the judge said they had read my papers and know that I know the legal tests (ie regulations 4 and 7) and have explained how they apply, but they will be asking how I get things done. So, I think because they are aware I knew 'how' to answer the question and explain how my conditions mean a certain descriptor and certain number of points applies, they didn't like that, if that makes sense. I know it's a bit mad to make that assumption, but it's just that they were unsmiling throughout so it came across as dislike of my knowledge?!

Overall was this a typical panel experience? They weren't overtly rude and they did allow me to speak, but I didn't appreciate the judgemental comments and overall I think they will be looking for reasons NOT to grant me additional points, than grant them. I personally think I got a 'bad' panel as I looked at feedback from other PIP Tribunal claimants, and some panels are very friendly, only keep claimants in there for about 30 mins, sometimes 20 or even 10 (!) and tell them they've read their papers and will be granting them the points, or tell them they've been successful very quickly on the day.

Obviously I will post as soon as I get the result but I'm really clueless. They may actually decimate my points and reduce them to zero just to be spiteful!

That's what you get for trying to learn how to help yourself in this scenario

Aw thank you so much! Only just logged in and seen this. It wasn't great and now feel exhausted and a bit upset but will have to wait to hear the outcome now. Thank you again

IMHO there's so much discrimination, including against claimants who 'threaten' officials and some panel members by having dared to get informed about the law and regs. If you're neuro-diverse like so many of us, you may not be able to help yourself from doing this - and why on earth shouldn't you???