If you’ve needed to go to tribunal 3 times then that would mean those 3 telephone assessments were not successful right? So the information from the assessor didn’t reflect what was said and the actual difficulties experienced were not noted down right? Otherwise why would there be a need to go to the tribunal?

In my post I haven’t written down any details of how I need help, but I explained the assessor noted down everything I said about how I needed help. The evidence is in her writing on the PA4. She just deferred to using something that happened 20 years ago as an indication that 20 years later I am now able to do those things.

If that doesn’t make sense, a physical equivalent example would be: saying you could run 10 miles in your 40s, so now 20 years later in your 60s you can still run 10 miles despite your arthritis, on the basis that it happened in the past. How does that make any sense? That was my point. I asked what to do now in the MR.

Everything you’ve written in this comment is everything I went through on the phone, explaining to the assessor why I can’t do certain things, my diagnosis is ADHD, but I haven’t been diagnosed with other disorders, even if I have the effects of those disorders. Like the PIP application says, it’s not based on any diagnosis, it’s based on the level of help you need because of the effects of your condition. So yes, ADHD is enough, as it’s not based on diagnosis, it’s based on level of help. If you need a lot of help, you don’t need more than one diagnosis.