Cable Forum - View Single Post - The state benefits system mega-thread.

**Hugh** · 24-03-2019, 14:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taf

That article refers to "cut and paste" and it was obvious in my daughter's assessment report and award letter.

And the usual lies and calculated omissions to try to make her seem not disabled at all. Total refusal to accept her psychiatrist's letter about diagnosis and treatment, in fact the letter was listed as "documents received" and never again in the whole report.

The request for Mandatory Reconsideration has been sent off, but I won't hold my breath that it will lift her from zero points. So then it'll be a long wait for tribunal.

I ended the request letter with a quote:

"As The Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP recently wrote:

"72% of PIP appeals heard found in favour of the claimant. Now that number is too high"."

How about reading that quote in context?

https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...and-experience

Quote:

We’ve stopped requiring the reassessment of those with the most severe and lifelong conditions, who already receive Employment and Support Allowance or Universal Credit. Those who’ve been awarded the highest level of Personal Independence Payment (PIP), whose needs are unlikely to decrease, now receive an ongoing award – with only a light touch review a decade later. This change recognises that people with the greatest health difficulties should be acknowledged as such, and treated in a way which respects their circumstances.

We are now trialling the video recording of PIP assessments. It is hoped this measure will make assessments more transparent for all concerned.

We can and must go further. We have already committed to reforming the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), and are continuing to collaborate with external stakeholders on this.

But I am aware there is more we need to do.

Of particular concern are the cases referred to tribunal following both PIP and WCA decisions. For example, between July and September 2018, 72% of PIP appeals heard found in favour of the claimant. Now that number is too high. We should do more to gather the evidence we need to make the right decision earlier, so that fewer claimants have to seek redress through tribunal. I will be looking at this matter over the coming months.