Here's an interesting decision from a second appeal to the Upper Tribunal that has recently been published.

It's for those who like reading this legal stuff.

Warning - It's long and pretty complicated, and of course contains some legal language.

Basically it's about having to attend PIP asssessment(s) in a different town/city when there is a nearer assessment centre in your home town.
It's also about an appointment cancelled by the assessment company being marked as a Failure to Attend by the DWP.
And it covers the fact that the first FTT was held by a Judge sitting alone, when the law says it should be a 3 member panel.

It's a catalogue of errors both from the DWP, and the First Tier Tribunals - 2 FTTs, the second FTT, after a first Upper Tribunal decision and directions, still made an error in law.

The DWPs evidence given is especially unbelieveable, they mix up dates and venues and don't seem to know which appointment they are disputing as a FTA.
The Judge had a go at them, calling them 'hopeless'.
I note that the original DWP submission to the first FTT was hopeless and the supplementary submission to the second FTT, ..., was worse than hopeless.
It would be amusing, until you think about the claimant who has had to suffer through all this for three years.

(TBH it all sounds somewhat similar to what a member here has been through, but maybe I'm thinking of 2 or 3 different cases together).

In the end the UT Judge rules that the claimant did have good cause for not attending (whichever appointment), and directs that they should be given a new assessment but that it must only be in their home town/City.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...47_2018-00.pdf