Thank you for that. Is this past performance of ATOS of some years back, because I thought they had been told to be more reasonable recently - you do paint a dire picture of them of some years back. Anyhow, I've already had a home visit by ATOS for ESA a few years ago, wouldn't that count for something? I'm now in the ESA Support Group. Also, wouldn't ones doctor's opinion count in this?

Thank you all for your advice. I'll mull over the implications of it all. Does everyone get a F2F with ATOS, or whoever, or is it judged on an individual case and may be deeded not necessary in some cases? I assume you are asked to phone by being sent a letter? Is there a time limit on doing the phone call, set down in the letter? I actually expect my PIP around Xmas and so hope to play around with it a bit and avoid the postal thing that Neword had.

I assume you got a letter asking you to phone? I have heard that if you can't deal with answering questions over the phone you have the option of doing this as a form. You didn't read any offer of this in the letter you were sent that I have assumed you received? What was the point or purpose of the phone call; or what kind of things did they ask?

I'm just trying to get the chronology here, how the process works. So the F2F with ATOS was the initial start to the PIP process and then the PIP2 form followed? Or the F2F with ATOS had nothing to do with the PIP procedure but was to do with something else all together?

So that begs the question what is PIP1? What's the process in all this? I have read or something that there's a phone call first.....?

Could you expand on your post please. F2F with who? The person who helped you fill in the form or ATOS type people? And how does the 3 hours relate to this, where does it apply? And can I ask what area is your disability in? Mines depression and less physical; though that's changing. Thanks.

What is PIP2 ???

But I would have thought in this hi-tech world once they were digitized that part could be removed....??? TO ALL:- The reason I wanted to see the form was because I had heard it was large. However, the government site one is only 20 pages. I've done the form for DLA a few times and that one, from memory, is about that size. Are the two claims' forms similar in size, format, questions asked etc?

Thank you all for that. I expect the form in 6 months time. I found the government form online but it seems to be rigged so it can't be copied. I'm surprise no one has scanned their posted one and put that up on the net. I'll keep looking on line for one that can be downloaded. No form in the links etc. on this site from what I can see. PomBlue

I expect to get the PIP form fairly soon and it would be good to view it before it arrives. I usually copy these forms to do a trial run and have a copy for future reference. Is there a copy of this on-line anywhere for me to download?

No. I'm looking for a legal or technical term that brings into question an expert's or institution's statement in a court of law because of their past record or success in their specialist field. I'm not looking for help per se in my present situation. I saw a lawyer on TV mention this as it was their job to do background checks on people/companies trying to sue the company he worked for or discredit them and stuff like that. If an opposition has a poor record then they carry less weight in a court of law - there are doubts about their claims. I thought he used a legal term for this but it was before my present situation so I never made a mental note of it.

Sorry to trouble people with this but I'm looking for any technical or legal terms that relate to the following condition. I'm due to go to court and this would be useful to make my point clear. It relates to experts and people representing institutions etc. giving evidence or statements in court. The validity or weighting etc. that their opinions are given to a case is related proportionally to the integrity, probity and track record, conduct etc. of the expert or person representing an institution - how they are seen in their professional capacity. An example of this would be the IMF etc. who recommended that the UK should join the ERM; which was a flop, and for us to join the Euro saying if we didn't we would become an economic backwater - which we 'certainly' did, the Euro being such a resounding success!!!....... NOT. Now the IMF et al are telling us to vote to remain. On their past track record their recommendations would been seen as highly suspect. So for the situation of a court is there a technical / legal term for a witness' or expert's credibility due to their past performance and conduct etc. which would affect the validity and weighting of their statement?

Not too sure if this is the section to ask this but.... I'm on benefits and I'm in the ESA Support Group and I've been to court and received what the police said was free legal aid but there were some forms to fill in on this, to see if I am eligible, at the court. There was a mix up on this as they didn't say why they were asking about my benefits and the forms were incorrectly filled in. My situation is that I have gone over the £16,000 threshold which stops the actual benefit payments and was wondering what the rules are about how much you need to have, £-wise, to not make you eligible for legal aid? Please note I have to do this at the library so if there are any questions it could be some days before I reply.

Antone "but you should inform them ASAP if your capital changes at any time." From what I gather from your earlier post (which I'm thankful), what you mean here is if it substantially alters due to some significant outlay other than bills etc, yes? It will be altering all the time as I'll be living off it as I'm too sick to do any work.

That is not what I'm saying. All I want to know is what are the rules about dealing with this at this stage or end of things, as I don't know , and how to deal with it when I reach or go below the £16,000 threshold, as I believe it steps down in £250 lots. They often either don't give you any information or tell you the wrong info because the person telling you don't understand it themselves but wont say this. And getting this out of them is like trying to get blood out of a stone.