| answer text |
<p>Analysis of unpublished Personal Independence Payment (PIP) data held by DWP provides
data on why decisions by DWP decision makers have been overturned at a tribunal hearing
between July 2013 and March 2022 and is shown annually in the table below. This information
is taken from Decision Notices and recorded on the PIP computer system.</p><p> </p><p>This
data only provides one reason per appeal why decisions by DWP decision makers have
been overturned at a tribunal hearing, and therefore may not give the full story as
there may be other reasons.</p><p> </p><p>Appeals data is taken from the DWP PIP computer
system’s management information. Therefore, this appeal data may differ from that
held by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service for various reasons such as delays
in data recording and other methodological differences in collating and preparing
statistics.</p><p> </p><p>These figures are the result of a complex data match across
a number of data sets. This data is unpublished data. It should be used with caution,
and it may be subject to future revision.</p><p> </p><p /><table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2"><p><strong>Summary
reason DWP decision<br> overturned at Tribunal hearing</strong></p></td><td colspan="10"><p><strong>Appeal
Clearance Year</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013 (from July)</p></td><td><p>2014</p></td><td><p>2015</p></td><td><p>2016</p></td><td><p>2017</p></td><td><p>2018</p></td><td><p>2019</p></td><td><p>2020</p></td><td><p>2021</p></td><td><p>2022
(up to March)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>New written evidence provided at hearing</p></td><td><p>14%</p></td><td><p>6%</p></td><td><p>9%</p></td><td><p>15%</p></td><td><p>9%</p></td><td><p>8%</p></td><td><p>4%</p></td><td><p>4%</p></td><td><p>1%</p></td><td><p>2%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Cogent
Oral Evidence</p></td><td><p>57%</p></td><td><p>74%</p></td><td><p>67%</p></td><td><p>54%</p></td><td><p>50%</p></td><td><p>43%</p></td><td><p>43%</p></td><td><p>26%</p></td><td><p>32%</p></td><td><p>32%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Reached
a Different Conclusion on<br> Substantially the Same Facts</p></td><td><p>29%</p></td><td><p>15%</p></td><td><p>13%</p></td><td><p>18%</p></td><td><p>26%</p></td><td><p>36%</p></td><td><p>41%</p></td><td><p>58%</p></td><td><p>59%</p></td><td><p>59%</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Other</p></td><td><p>0%</p></td><td><p>5%</p></td><td><p>10%</p></td><td><p>12%</p></td><td><p>15%</p></td><td><p>13%</p></td><td><p>12%</p></td><td><p>11%</p></td><td><p>7%</p></td><td><p>7%</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p
/><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Learning from this information, we have
made improvements to our decision-making processes to help ensure we make the right
decision as early as possible in the claim journey. We have introduced a new approach
to decision making at both the initial decision and the Mandatory Reconsideration
stage, giving Decision Makers additional time to proactively contact customers where
they think additional evidence may support the claim.</p>
|
|
