Completing a PIP review form

What is the best strategy in completing a review form where the condition remains the same? The layout of the form suggests that all that needs to be done is to tick the “ No change” box and that more detail is required only where there is a change. However I have come across clients who have done this being refused a new award At present I am completing all the details laboriously but it does seem to be going against the tenor of the form.

While two of the three boxes refer to changes, the middle one just asks how you manage the activity in question without reference to change at all : “Tell us how you manage this activity now, including the use of any aids that you need.”

So I always make sure I give a full but brief (due to the tiny size of the box) description of the problems and any aids/help in that box.

From review appeals I’ve been doing, putting ‘no change’ and no further details in every box doesn’t seem to put DWP off carrying out a HCP assessment and taking away points and means I have very little to go off when I’m putting together a submission further down the line. I’m much happier when they appellant has at least put a brief ‘I still need help due to xyz’ in the box.

Yes my approach is similar kat v’s. If there’s been a change then obviously full details go on the form but if there’s no change I’ll just put a brief statement outlining the basic issue, the cause and what aids/assistance/prompting/etc the client needs. Usually enough to fill one box. I’m not entirely convinced it makes the DWP any more or less likely to go for an HCP assessment but it feels more sensible than just ticking a box.

There are various approaches to this. The only thing we can be reasonably confident of is that ticking “No change” and leaving things blank is not a good approach in most cases.

My experience has been that DWP take the view that if you proactively assert no change but then add nothing you have failed to back up your assertion with evidence. In some instances that has turned into an immediate ending of the award but, in their new more generous guise, DWP usually take the view that referring the matter to a HCP for an assessment is a positive thing as it’s helping them gather evidence that nothing has in fact changed. Generally speaking that doesn’t then tend to be the outcome.

Where the points are scored via aids my experience and suspicion is that you’re generally okay stating that the aid is still being used for the reasons laid out in the original claim. Outside of that my inclination has always been that such things should be treated as a new claim wherever possible (accepting that we don’t all have the time to be able to do that).

If a longer explanation is required I have never been inclined to look at a box on a DWP form and bemoan the lack of space. I add sheets as needed. My most successful outcomes have been cases where we have asserted no change and used the boxes to do no more than reference back to the previous claim form and then included the original claim pack. This assumes a certain quality/accuracy to the original claim pack and also, of course, that there have been no substantive changes.

It would be worth referring to caselaw such as SF v SSWP (PIP) [2016] UKUT 481 (AAC). If tribunals are required at least to reference the previous award to explain why they may be changing a decision, that the decision maker should not reduce the award unless there is different evidence, not just a different Health Care Professional view on the care/mobility needs.

Thanks everyone. I am coming to the conclusion that we do need to restate in some way,  either in the middle box   or in additional evidence or through provision of the previous claim form,  how the condition is affecting the carrying out of the activities.  Then at least the evidence is there. Whilst it is true that the DWP should not terminate without evidence, as I understand it, it would be reasonable for them to ask for a new HCP report which then becomes new evidence. On which they can base a new decision.

My approach (based on experience of seeing awards reduced or terminated when nothing but “no change” has been entered), is to ensure that sufficient evidence and information is included to justify at least the continuation of the current award. It appears that failing to do this gives the DWP an excuse to claim that no evidence has been supplied to support continuing entitlement.