is this clased as beyond the balance of probability

[paul1979]

hi im going to a tribuneral about my pip,claim and my friend has been looking threw my paper work and he notice this..in the summary justification..of capitas exsamanation.. it states(it appears that myself has some limited funcinol restrictions which occurs more than 50% of the time and will continue for the future)and also in my reconcideration letters there are no signitures on ever of them to say who had reasest me can anyone shed light on this please thankyou

[king12345]

I haven't got enough lungs to read the one sentence.

Can you please rephrase the concept so we understand it?

Thanks

[paul1979]

sorry everyone im new here lol... in the summary justifercation exsamination done by capita...it states that I have limited funcinal restrictions and it occurs more than 50% of the time and will for the future..

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

hi im going to a tribuneral about my pip,claim and my friend has been looking threw my paper work and he notice this..in the summary justification..of capitas exsamanation.. it states(it appears that myself has some limited funcinol restrictions which occurs more than 50% of the time and will continue for the future)and also in my reconcideration letters there are no signitures on ever of them to say who had reasest me can anyone shed light on this please thankyou

Hello Paul,

 

 

This is detail of a medical examination is it not and a reassessment of your claim?

 

 

It seems you have a disorder that affects your ability to function for more than half the time, these appear to be case notes probably not needing a signature.

[paul1979]

I got my decision and it was no. then I asked for a reconcideration. and on the reconcideration letter there is no signature to who carred it out. yes this is the summary justification carred out of my medical on behalf of the dwp..so what ever they say in this report the dwp normally go by

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I got my decision and it was no. then I asked for a reconcideration. and on the reconcideration letter there is no signature to who carred it out. yes this is the summary justification carred out of my medical on behalf of the dwp..so what ever they say in this report the dwp normally go by

What is it you want to achieve Paul, does the letter have no signature at all?

[paul1979]

right nope the letter does not have no signature at all,im going to a tribuneral,and I wanted some advice ok..and my friend thought because it states my illness affects me more than 50% and capitas verified it that this should be beyond the balance of probability..and I thought tht every letter from the dwp had to be signed other wise its not valid

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

right nope the letter does not have no signature at all,im going to a tribuneral,and I wanted some advice ok..and my friend thought because it states my illness affects me more than 50% and capitas verified it that this should be beyond the balance of probability..and I thought tht every letter from the dwp had to be signed other wise its not valid

 

 

What actually is printed on the bottom of the document, could there be a 2nd page?

[paul1979]

at the very last page it says yours sincerely and then office manager they are both blank

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

at the very last page it says yours sincerely and then office manager they are both blank

 

 

A digital signature being the writers position i.e. Office Manager I think.

[paul1979]

ok but its strange every other letter ive had they have been signed ok just trying to find something to tackle them with that's all tks

[antone]

The fact that a letter from the DWP is not signed is of no importance. It will not make any difference at your Tribunal.

[paul1979]

hi antone did you read my 1st thread by anychance?

[antone]

hi antone did you read my 1st thread by anychance?

 

This is the only thread you've created. If you mean your first post then yes, I read it.

 

For your Tribunal, what you need to do is show by whatever evidence you can that you meet the descriptors for the benefit you are claiming. It's not really a case of "balance of probabilities" - what you're doing is providing evidence that you're entitled to benefit and, where necessary, pointing out errors made by the Atos/Capita/whatever company assessor. If the DWP DM who did the reconsideration also made errors, you can point these out as well, but you must always focus on how you satisfy the conditions for an award of benefit.

 

In other words, you may have some functional limitations, but do these limitations give rise to care or mobility needs that would mean you'd be entitled to PIP? If they do, that's where you should concentrate when deciding what evidence to place before the Tribunal.

[paul1979]

cool thankyou ...at last someone answered me with some sense..