DD has (finally!) been awarded PIP after a Mandatory Reconsideration, which is a huge relief and we are obviously really pleased.
I'm happy with the rates she has been awarded, but there are a few areas of daily living in which she's been awarded fewer points than expected and where the DWP has overstated her ability to do certain tasks. I see now that the evidence in these areas could have been more detailed and explicit (it was our first time and I'm still getting to grips with all of this), so I know for next time.
I could obtain further evidence in these areas which I believe would increase her score and elicit more accurate statements about her abilities, but this wouldn't increase her financial award as it's already at the enhanced rate.
Because we've already gone through Mandatory Recon, the next stage would be a tribunal. It seems hugely disproportionate to take DD's case to a tribunal when we actually agree with the overall decision and when the outcome wouldn't affect her financial award in any way. That sounds like it would be utter madness, obviously.
However, I'm conscious that I'm absolutely clueless about PIP and I obviously messed up the original application (through my own naivety as to the extent of evidence required), so I don't want to get this bit wrong.
DD will need significant support for her disabilities for the rest of her life, so is there any way my not challenging these incorrect assumptions now might come back to bite us in the arse in future reviews?
If the letter just said 'there was insufficient evidence that you need support with x', I wouldn't be worried - what bothers me is the fact it states 'you can do x' and I don't want it to look like I agree.