Failed PIP claim then failed Blue Badge claim

Thanks, I will agree about the PIP form. I have been through what he has put on it, although I am no expert, and can't find anything that is really wrong with what he wrote.

He feels that the face to face assessment was the problem. He wasn't given enough time to explain what he wanted to say and the assessor tried to put words in his mouth to get him to admit something that whilst true, it wasn't as the assessor wanted to describe it. He gets confused easilly and nervous when in a situation like that.

As for the Blue Badge there was no way that he should have been refused it. The Council actually said that they could not go against the decision that the DWP had made no matter what was on the application form or how he managed to perform the tests at the assessment. In a way I can understand their difficulty. How could they award him a Blue Badge when only weeks earlier the DWP, following a disability assessment, found that he could walk more than 200 metres with no problems.

If he applied for a Blue Badge again, would the Council use the DWP decision letter again as evidence?

I am trying to convince him to think about making another PIP claim, he only has 7 months before he will be too old to make one. I don't think that he could withstand another rejection, be it from the DWP or the Council.

For the blue badge he need the pip or dla and some cases , he can get one if he's , blind , epilepsy.type 1 diabetic , you well know that he can apply again after 6 months and this time he will need some evidence that he can't walk more than 20 meters,we don't want him to lie or get involved in any fraud do we les. ,my point is sometimes you need to lie to survive,they are sharks they don't care about old people they care about themselves not us. Give your friend useful advice please if a white lies don't hurt 

Hi Nadnad

Some posters will shudder at reading your reply and think even "white lies" cross the line.

However, I do understand what you say but have a different way of reaching the same conclusion. The Healthcare assessors are trained to look for those who exaggerate their disabilities simply to claim extra benefit rather than compensation for the extra cost of illness.

I have no problem with that in fact that is why the face to face assessments exist. But we all know that some assessors are a bit over zealous and view nearly everyone as a 'fraud'. I suspect this has happened to Les' friend and caused him no end of stress due to the rejection which is on par with stating he is not disabled and not unwell.

At the assessment you have to watch for the subtle things like the house being “too tidy” as the assessor can take this as the claimant doing it himself even if it is done by carers/cleaners. Believe it or not they are trained to look for this and make that conclusion. Therefore to avoid a ‘false’ conclusion its best NOT to have a tidy house when they visit!

Another example was keeping a dog where the assumption was the claimant would walk the pet daily, on Work Capability Assessment admitting to being able to answer a phone. A claimant may innocently reply ‘yes’ but the question was asked in the context of doing an 8 hours shift 5 days a week which might provide a completely different challenge for disabled/ill claimants.

These answers could be classed as “white lies” but there again sometimes the questions are also “white lies”.

Totally agree with you but the old man he's not crying out loud for mobility car like a lot of disabled.  And some ppl they do panic and they can't say anything about their illness and it affect them on a daily basis..some they are proud to show that they are in pain or ask a friend or someone to go with them so yes when I said white lies I didn't mean fraud or exaggerated just be honest don't say anything about one good day that may get you to court and stress 

i think that to put what you say into context the following would explain it.

(a) There is an Upper Tier Tribunal decision that found that despite the claimant putting on the claim form. telling the assessor and the 1st Tier Tribunal that she did not need any help for looking after herself. She said that she was more than able to care for herself, cook, dress and attend to her toilet needs. All obviously forund that she was not entitled to the benefit claimed by virtue of her own evidence.However on appeal to the UT, they found that the medical evidence that she had submitted, and despite her pleas of independence, showed that on the balance of probabilities the lady claimant was understating her needs and as such the benefit was awarded to her depite her stating adamantly that she wasn't entitled to it and didn't need it.

(b) it is common knowledge that the computer software used to record the findings of a PIP face to face assessment will not allow the assessor to enter anything that relates to either the 'Reliability' factor or the 'Variability for more than 50% of the time' factor.

They can only record the positive and negatives.- you either can or can't.

Thus making the statement by the claimant that they can carry out the 200 metre walk (but being in agony after 10 metres, will not apply). It will be recorded that you can or can't walk 200 metres. In this example it will be recorded as 'can walk 200 metres'.

(b) likewise with the 50% rule, it is either, can you carry out the activity or not. Claiming on the balance of probability does not feature.

Both of these carry forward in the DWP making a decision. It is only when the law is tested at either the 1st Tier or Upper Tibunals does the situation get examined in the correct way.

Put simply, the whole system is geared to the 'norm' - 'average' claimant - one that does not have fluctuating needs.

Simple factual statements, can you or can't you.

Claiming that the worst day is like every day is plainly wrong, but claiming that you have bad days, some not so good days , and some days when you feel not too bad will not help you.

Hence the best way is to describe the average day (taking into account the good, bad and better days)

Les  atos and their assessor are criminals how many disabled killed themselves.my friend got heart block aneurism and not controlled epilepsy plus  she's blind in one eye and she fit for work atos decided , what do you call this .and recently tried to take her life so its it fair or not fair , and some ppl all what they want if we are going to loose our mobility car who cares about a car we are loosing young disabled ppl ,if we are here is to help each other  not going crazy by loosing a mobility car and for the purpose of having a good time .whats wrong with you want a car buy it with your money end of had enough of these type of ppl for me they are not disabled 

Hi I don't think this is helpful!   Remember it's not ATOS or their assessors who are 'criminals'  it all comes down from the Govt.  They set the rules don't forget and if ATOS don't implement them they lose the contract. 

Also there are many disabled people who can drive but can't walk as they are 2 different things.  Without a mobility car they would be housebound,  and be unable to visit doctors and the hospital when they need too.  Not everyone can afford to buy a car and most rely on their PIP to pay for it.   They are not using the car to have a 'good time' but rather because it is essential for them.   They are just as disabled as your friend but in a different way perhaps. 

I'm not talking about the disabled with a wheelchair I'm talking about ( disabled) crying out loud about the mobility car if they apply for pip and lose it . In a first place why they give the pip or dla and plus ESA its to help having a career and pay for a taxi hospitals etc,they don't give it to go to the sea side and enjoy the view .lets say there's 2 types of disabled the ones who are after a car and the others they suffer because they are always in pain , 

for someone to write a list of her problems but she's worried about the car because she use the car to go around a word,

since 2006 on dla always high on both why I didn't buy a car it's not a necessity,I prefer to call a cab return to the hospital,my gp is home visit ,the physio it's home visit 

Hi Nadnad

Actually I have to pull you up over the use of the mobility car. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with a claimant using the car for a trip to the seaside, indeed the whole idea of a mobility car is make work, shopping and pleasure trips inclusive.

I agree there must be on the balance of probabilities a number of claimants who have gained mobility cars by exaggerating their condition but the numbers are very small. It is hard enough to get PIP mobility when you are physically disabled never mind trying to fiddle one.

The trouble is we are all judgmental and sometimes jump to the wrong conclusions about individual’s ability to walk any kind of distance. I have learnt that it is best to leave it to the professionals. Yes they make mistakes but not as many as those who make assumptions without knowing all the evidence.

Good for you if you are close enough to do that.  Not everyone is and for some disabled people a car is essential to enable them to get out and about at all,  otherwise they would be housebound.

You seem to be assuming that people who can drive are not as disabled as those who can't.   Ill  people get PIP because they need the extra money to help them cope with their illness,  whether some use it to have a car is beside the point.  You choose to spend yours on cabs.   That's your choice but you can't and shouldn't dictate how others use theirs and use that to pass judgement on them. 

I agree with Anthony that it is almost impossible to get benefits these days and those who do are mainly genuine. 

Hi & thanks for the vote of confidence although I feel that it isn't really justified.

The only viable way forward that I can see is to attack the PIP decision. With the Council holding the DWP decision I cannot see a way forward with the Blue Badge - they could continually wave it in front of my friends face no matter how many applications he makes. From what I understand there are no appeal rights as regards a refusal to issue a Blue Badge.

Being outside the time limit to apply for a MR there are also no appeal rights against the DWP in refusing to accept a late MR application.

So back to the beginning and go for PIP once again seems the best option.

And this time he needs to both have the PIP2 completed by a professional and hopefully have some professional support at a possible Tribunal hearing. Without that support he is more than likely to 'put his foot in' by giving the wrong impression.

What a mess

I only asked the original question to see if anybody else has a similar thing happen to them and how they managed to extract themselves from it with the Council waving the PIP failure decsion as a red flag.

That was his mistake, he was far too honest and open and should really have kept it to himself - he unintentionally gave the Council the reason to refuse the application when he need not have done - totally idiotic in my opinion. 

 

Les

Unfortunately for your friend you are correct that the only way forward is to re-apply for PIP and get a different outcome. Playing devils advocate you can't really blame the council for refusing him a blue badge as like any other ‘benefit’ qualification it is evidence based. If his ‘evidence’ is from the almighty DWP stating he can walk more than 200 meters then he hasn’t a hope in hell of a positive outcome or winning any appeal.

As I stated in the original reply you seem very well versed in mainstream benefit applications so it is back to the drawing board and start all over again. What I would add is there is going to be one hell of an elephant in the room and that is this now infamous DWP assessment report.

You really need to explain and prove why it is wrong and why your friend was mislead into giving the wrong answers at the assessment. If he suffers with a mental health condition (even if it is depression) then your task could become easier to explain.