“13. The tribunal found that much of Mrs [YC's] oral evidence to the tribunal was exaggerated and not credible. Examples included saying that the local shop that she goes to is 5 doors from her house (using Google maps and taking clear instructions as to which shop it was — the VG shop which has a post office inside and other basic food stuffs — we were able to establish that this shop is 0.3 miles from her home and not 5 doors away), saying that she had not had an accident when walking when she had an x-ray on her ankle. She said that the doctor made this up so that she could have an x-ray which the tribunal did not find to be credible. She also said that she went nowhere on her own however the medical records showed that she would go into some appointments on her own.”
“General Mental Health Findings 16. Given that the majority of descriptors relate to Mrs [YC's] mental health, the tribunal made the following findings of fact: a. Mrs [YC] has diagnoses of anxiety and depression, which are long standing. The numerous life events that she has endured are set out within the GP records in the consultation just after the date of decision (19.10.2023 — had four bereavements over the past few years -found one son dead, another son was murdered and husband hung himself - A13). b. Her mental health is managed by her GP. She had been under secondary services (Tees and Esk Valley) but this was some time before 2016. After she found one of her son's [sic] dead, she told the tribunal that the GP had told her the waiting list was too long for help. However, the GP records show that she was signposted for support (for example bereavement support — entry 27.2.23—A8), however she did not take this up and we found that her oral evidence - in terms of being told the waiting list was too long — not to be credible. c. Mrs [YC], as referred to above, is a stoical lady who was not at risk of suicide as shown in her GP records (A8). She was not so depressed that she was unable to care for herself in terms of cooking, eating, taking medication, dressing /undressing and washing/bathing. The GP records show that she was prescribed standard dose anti-depressants at the date of decision. She had thought they were not working and refused them shortly before the date of decision however the GP had discussed this with her, and she had agreed to continue. We did not accept that she needed prompting with any of these descriptors given our findings regarding her mental health (above and below). d. She spends a lot of the time alone "little support around" when her partner is at work (A8) e. She told the Nurse at the assessment that her medication was effective (81) and she was not under any specialist mental health service at the date of decision. f. Mrs [YC] behaved normally and was not hostile; she did not sound anxious, agitated or tense and coped well at the PIP medical assessment (86). g. Mrs [YC] had no diagnosed cognitive impairment or learning difficulties and showed adequate general memory and concentration at the hearing and at the PIP assessment. She has a good insight into medications and health conditions. h. She makes her own decisions around her medication as clearly demonstrated in the GP records (entries 17.7.23 and 27.7.23 — A10/11) . She is clearly aware of what each medication is for and we did not find that she would need prompting to do so. Once the GP had spoken to her about continuing the medication she agreed to do so (A11). i. Mrs [YC] drinks alcohol “above the recommended guidance” however she, is not alcohol dependent. She does not have any withdrawal symptoms on a morning. She is not unsafe due to her alcohol consumption. She did not drink daily (A20) and she told the tribunal that she would have "about six cans of lager a night" — hence she did not drink until evening time when most of her activities of daily living had been completed. j. Whilst she said that she needs her husband to prompt with activities of daily living, we found that she exaggerated the extent to which he did so. As noted in the GP records she is often alone with little support. She cares for herself and a pet dog during the day. k. She discussed eating with the clinical support at her GP. surgery whereby it is noted that she "eats vegetables not much meat she likes chocolate" (A20). She is not underweight (BMI 21.3 – A l0), is not prescribed supplements, has no input from a dietician and as she is often alone as referenced above, we did not accept that she usually needed prompting to take nutrition. As referred to elsewhere Mrs [YC] was not a credible witness. Her claim form was exaggerated, stating that she "can go days or weeks without eating" (49), which is clearly not the case given the other findings. l. Mrs [YC] was also not credible in terms of preparing food. She refers in her claim form to not being safe and "cannot be left unattended in the kitchen" (49). As stated she is not learning disabled, she is not unsafe due to alcohol and she is not at risk of suicide. We did not find that she was unsafe in the kitchen. We also did not accept that she needed prompting given our general mental health findings. m. We have made findings regarding refusals to award points for washing/bathing, dressing/undressing given the mental health findings. Again she was not credible in her oral evidence telling the tribunal that she needed her partner to help her in and out of the bath because she goes "dizzy" she said she was "always dizzy". This was not documented within the GP records and she is not prescribed any medication for dizziness.”
“Mobility Descriptor 1 18. We found that Mrs [YC] had difficulties in planning and following an unfamiliar journey as more particularly described in mobility descriptor ld. She claimed to have difficulties with anxiety and needed her partner with her. Whilst she representative had initially claimed descriptor if, Mrs [YC told' her herself that she would go out alone once a week around the time that she claimed PIP. We had noted in her GP records that she would sometimes be alone in the consultations, and she agreed to this within the hearing when she was reminded of the medical evidence "maybe the odd blood test" she said. There is also the mammogram that she was able to go to and we found that given she was not a credible witness, she would usually be able to go to familiar places alone. She did not drive, and she would go to the local shop (see below). Mobility Descriptor 2 19. Mrs [YC] has a diagnosis of COPD. We know that this condition is progressive, and she told the tribunal that she was a "lot worse" by the date of the tribunal. She was breathless on the call but that's because she had a chest infection and was just going to pick up her prescription after the hearing. 20. Mrs [YC's] representative had asked the tribunal to consider descriptor 2e, which we found to be completely over-claimed. As set out above, Mrs [YCs] oral evidence was that she walked to the local shop and said it was only "5 doors away". When the tribunal had a break and checked Google maps there was no shop there. We were able to ask Mrs [YC] about this and take evidence from her and her partner. It is clear that the VG shop which she was talking about was 0.3 miles away which is a six-minute walk away according to Google. Her partner told the representative that it would take him a couple of minutes and 10 minutes walking with Mrs [YC]. His evidence was also not credible unless he runs to the shop, given that Google states six minutes at an average walking pace. If it takes Mrs [YC] 10 minutes, and she told the tribunal that she had a one rest on the wall of her nephew's house (longer if he was there as she would stand and chat), then 10 minutes would represent a reasonable walking pace. 21. We knew, having a medical expert on the panel, that her COPD had not even been graded as level 3 at the date of decision (six months after the date of decision it was grade 3 — A16). The medical expertise of the panel showed that she would have been able to repeatedly mobilise more than 200 Metres at the date of decision. Certainly, walking for 10 minutes with one stop — so with a couple of minutes stop — an eight-minute walk split into two would be walking for around four minutes before needing to stop. Even at a slow walking pace this would be a distance of 200 metres (50 metres x 4). She then repeated this journey to go back home. It was medically improbable that she was able to walk less than 20 metres as claimed, likewise improbable to walk less than 200 metres repeatedly and in a reasonable timescale. She claimed in her claim form to be "unstable" and having to need her partner to support her with moving around. We did not find any safety issues with her walking. She had not been referred to a falls clinic, had not mentioned this to her GP and again her claims lacked credibility. She was not entitled to any points at all under this component.”
“2. —(1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly. (2) Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes— … (c) ensuring, so far as practicable, that the parties are able to participate fully in the proceedings;”