I have attended two assessments and on both occasions the question asked was "how minutes can you walk for". Bear in mind that the average person walks 100m in a minute then surely you are doomed to failure if you say just 1 minute?

You should ask for a Direction from a Judge that the Respondent (i.e. the PIP people) are barred from taking any further part in the proceedings. Usually does the trick!

Couple of questions ... was the form blank or completed when you signed it? Do you have an appeal against the decision still waiting to be looked at?

Is this not a Regulation 29 argument? In that "the claimant suffers from some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement and, by reasons of such disease or disablement, there would be a substantial risk to the mental or physical health of any person if the claimant were found not to have limited capability for work."

Regarding the "incomplete" ESA50 you could try this: Commissioner Howellin CIB/14442/96 (*/97) - at paragraph 15 the Commissioner says: “I do not think that a Tribunal should regard the scope oftheir enquiries as circumscribed by the boxes claimants may or may not haveticked at an earlier stage on the long and very complicated forms they are nowexpected to fill out.”

Hi all Don't know if this Upper Tribunal decision is of interest? CJSA/2428/2012 says: " 7. In this case the claimant denied having received any notice from theJobcentre until one was enclosed with Mr Sheppard’s reply to hiscomplaint. In giving permission toappeal I asked whether there was any evidence that a notice envisaged byregulation 73(2A)(b) had ever been given or sent to the claimant andspecifically whether Ms Porter, writing on behalf ofIngeus UK Ltd, not Jobcentre Plus or the DWP, was an “employmentofficer” for this purpose. 8. In reply, the Secretary of State accepts that the tribunal erred byfailing to apply regulation 73(2A). Further, the Secretary of State submits that: “Although it was DWPpolicy intention that all FND providers be designated“employment officers” this was not prescribed within the legislation (Jobseekers Act 1995 orthe Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996). Further,I can find no evidence that Ingeus were so designated.” 9. As by section 19(10) a person who is not an officer of theSecretary of State can only be an “employment officer” if they have beendesignated for the purposes of the section by order, it follows that thecondition in regulation 73(2A)(b) was not fulfilled and thus, withoutmore, that the claimant was to be regarded as having good cause for his act oromission. 10. Although the Secretary of State invites me to remit the appeal, itseems to me this is a case where I can properly substitute my owndecision. If the necessary preconditionto finding a lack of good cause has not been made out, that is an end of thematter. 11. For the record however, in giving permission I further asked whetherthe tribunal erred by failing to make sufficient findings as to what ifanything it had been established that the Ingeus programme would provide to theclaimant, when there was a conflict of evidence between him (“a literate courseand an interview course”) and Mr Sheppard (“help such as exploring otherjob goals and making speculative applications”.) I also asked whether the tribunal erred byfailing to consider whether if there had been a failure to establish what theIngeus programme would provide to the claimant, or if he reasonably consideredthat what was to be provided would not help him, that could provide good causefor purposes of section 19(5)(b).

I too know of your condition and have assisted with successful claims for DLA for people with the condition so it is possible.

Regulation 3(2) of the ESA (WRA) Regs2011, seems to exempt carers from Work Related Activities Requirement to undertake work-relatedactivity 3.—(1) The Secretary of State may require a person who satisfies therequirements in paragraph (2) to undertake work-related activity(a) as acondition of continuing to be entitled to the full amount of employment andsupport allowance payable to that person. (2) The requirements referred to in paragraph (1) are that the person– (a) is required to take part in, or has taken part in, one or more work-focusedinterviews pursuant to regulation 54 of the ESA Regulations; (b) is not a lone parent who is responsible for and a member of the samehousehold as a child under the age of 5; © is not entitled to a carer’s allowance; and (d) is not entitled to a carer premium under paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 to theESA Regulations. As far as I know there has been noamendment to this so someone on CA can’t be required to do work relatedactivity.

Just to pick up on the point about lack of support from the GP .. both DLA and AA are "self assessment" benefits and the decision maker's own guides tell them not to place too much emphasis on what is or isn't in a report from a GP. The best a GP can do is confirm diagnosis and what they have seen e.g. you struggling to get up from the chair or the way you walked in the surgery. My GP would have no idea if I could cook a meal or not, we've never discussed it and he's not invited himself round for tea yet! And as for problems during the night .. well the wife might object if I ask my GP to share the bed with us!

Did anyone witness this? I would strongly urge you to complain as such behavious is atrocious.

Hmm not as cut and dried as I thought. Okay get on to the Tribunals Service and request a statement of reasons and a record of proceedings. Then try to get some advice .. you would be looking for someone to help you find grounds (that means reasons) to review the Tribunal decision or appeal to the Upper Tribunal. It sounds worse than it is but the Upper Tribunal look for mistakes in law with the Tribunal and not just a dispute about the facts.

Before a Tribunal can remove an award they must warn you and ensure that you are aware that they might remove the award that you have. They should offer you the chance to withdraw the appeal. If they did not do this it would probably be seen as an error in law giving you possible grounds to go further.

"With the national 'IB(IS) Reassessment exercise' due to commence from 28 February 2011, the DWP has provided an update on the almost 1,700 claimants who have already started having their benefit reassessed as part of a trial that has been taking place in Aberdeen and Burnley since October 2010. In new guidance issued to local authority housing benefit departments, the DWP advises that - 'As of 27 January 2011, the IB/IS Reassessment customer journey has commenced for 1693 of the 1700 customers; with a small number of customers opting to withdraw from the reassessment exercise and cease their IB claim. Figures up to 27 January 2011 [show that] - 834 customers have been allowed ESA, of those 389 have moved into the Support Group 445 have moved into the Work Related Activity Group [*] 332 customers have been disallowed ESA [*] 123 appeals have been received by Jobcentre Plus so far. But as yet, no appeal decisions have been made. 21 customers have however been successfully awarded ESA upon reconsideration of their case pre-appeal.' NB - approximately 1,000 cases per week will begin to be reassesed as part of the national roll out of the reassessment exercise from 28 February 2011, the DWP adds, rising to 7,000 cases per week from 4 April 2011 and 11,000 cases per week from 9 May 2011."

I think the situation can be summarised like this .. at first you were not treated as a couple. Your wife claimed HB as a Single person and your income was ignored. Now you are being treated as a couple so your income is combined and may be over the threshhold for HB. That sound right? As for being treated as a couple - it depends on how the household is set up. Do you share the bills? Eat together?

Here's another little gem I've found ... The Association of British Insurers (ABI) is in talks with the government about the private sector taking responsibility for the provision of welfare benefits. Nick Kirwan , assistant director at the ABI, said the trade body is exploring the possibility of life companies providing incapacity benefit and jobseeker’s allowance. ‘We are engaged with the government and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and Treasury officials over models and viability,’ he said.’

Thought someone would have posted on this already ... this from another website. Government launches consultation on disability benefit reform The government has today launched a consultation on a proposal to replace disability living allowance (DLA) with a new benefit, the personal independence payment. Introducing the consultation, 'Disability Living Allowance reform', Minister for Disabled People Maria Miller states that - 'Personal independence payment will maintain the key principles of DLA, providing cash support to help overcome the barriers which prevent disabled people from participating fully in everyday life, but it will be delivered in a fairer, more consistent and sustainable manner. It is only right that support should be targeted at those disabled people who face the greatest challenges to leading independent lives. This reform will enable that support, along with a clearer, more straightforward assessment process. Personal independence payment will also be a more dynamic benefit – it will take account of changes in individual circumstances and the impact of disabilities, as well as wider changes in society, such as social attitudes and equality legislation.' The DWP states that it plans to introduce the new benefit in 2013/14, when it will begin reassessing the working age (16-64 year olds) caseload, and that it is considering whether to reassess children and people aged over 65. Key features of the personal independence payment set out in the consultation document include - the new benefit will have two components, each with two rates - the ‘mobility’ component will be based on a claimant's ability to get around, while the ‘daily living’ component will be based on their ability to carry out 'other key activities necessary to participate in everyday life'; claimants will have to qualify for the benefit for a period of six months and be expected to continue to qualify for a further six months before an award can be made; there will no automatic entitlements for people with specified health conditions - other than the special rules for people who are terminally ill - instead, each case will be looked at individually; entitlement will be based on an 'objective assessment' focusing on a claimant's ability to carry out a range of 'key activities necessary to everyday life'; the assessment process will include information from the claimant and health care professionals who look after them, and, in most cases, there will be a face-to-face meeting with an independent healthcare professional 'allowing an in-depth analysis of an individual’s circumstances'; the personal independence payment will take greater account of aids and adaptations and the DWP is considering how best to take account of these in the assessment in a way that reflects how they are used and paid for; the DWP will take into account the way that DLA currently 'passports' the claimant to other benefits in its reforms, and will also consider how it interacts with other forms of support, for example adult social care, and explore whether it is possible to share information at the assessment stage and eliminate areas of overlap. all awards will be periodically reviewed and there will be penalties if a claimant knowingly fails to report a change that would have resulted in a reduction in benefit; the DWP is exploring ways to help individuals manage their health condition or impairment. The consultation runs until 14 February 2010.

Speaking from experience .. I had a friend who was prosecuted for fraud. He pleaded guilty. The DWP wanted something like £20k. The Court decided he should repay £8k so he did and that was the end of the matter. Obviously it may be different for different cases so please don't take this as being representative of every case.

Provided the letter does not run to lots of pages take three copies with you to the Tribunal and ask that they read it. They can refuse but then this could be considered a breach of the Tribunals "over-riding objective".

I think arrears of benefits are ignored for 12 months but would like someone to confirm this.

Could have been sent in error? Is there a history of malicious complaints here? I had a friend who was the victim of regular malicious allegations and eventually the DWP took them as such and ignored them. You would think they would use some common sense. I would agree that the letter itself merits a complaint.

There is often a reluctance to stay criminal proceedings pending civil proceedings but there several authorities in support of the assertion including: Mote v (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor [2007] EWCA Civ 1324 (14 December 2007) In this case, the court considered an appeal concerning a refusal to adjourn civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. At paragraphs 40 and 18 of the judgement, the court supports the tribunal chairman’s reasons for not adjourning, which included “As the issue of entitlement would be relevant at least for the purposes of mitigation in the event of a conviction, it was desirable that that issue should be authoritatively determined by the body to which it had been entrusted by Parliament” In commissioners decision CH/3744/2006 Commissioner (as he was then) Mesher observed (at para 14): “In my no doubt unrepresentative experience as a Commissioner, the standard of the examination of questions of true entitlement to benefit in criminal prosecutions is often woeful, so that claimants with some kind of case will often be better off getting the expert evaluation of an appeal tribunal”.”

One thought about the carers allowance. The letter you sent covers you for initial disclosure. However I'm sure I've read something about a continuing duty to disclose. I think this means that you should have ensured that the letter was received and should have noticed something was wrong when you continued to receive payments. Hopefully someone else will have more on this. If it is more than 13 months since the decison was made an appeal may not be an option anymore. There may be other options but you need to get advice on this. If you do get an appeal in then technically the appeal should take precedence over any court case but this rarely happens. There is case law on this.

The statement of reasons should explain what evidence was considered (and preferred), what facts were made out from that evidence and what law was applied. The statement does not have to run to pages and pages but must give sufficient reasons to show the Tribunal considered all matters and how they weighed the evidence. A list of findings and facts is simply not enough. You do not need a representative to appeal to the Upper Tribunal and you do not need to have any knowledge of case law but you can only appeal on an error of law not on the facts but strangely insufficient findings of fact can be an error in law. Confused?

The last email I had for him is this one .. [email protected] not sure if it still works though

Hi there, DLA is not awarded for a specific medical condition but the way that the condition(s) impact on your ability to walk and ability to perform personal tasks such as dressing, bathing etc. Two people with the same condition may not be affected in the same way. You can get DLA even if you don't have a diagnosis although it is often easier with a diagnosis. I know of people with diabetes and retinopathy that get DLA and people that don't. Try support groups for help and advice or possibly the RNIB?