A Personal Independence Payment (PIP) tribunal has sparked significant concern after the presiding judge allegedly questioned the validity of a claimant's ADHD diagnosis, which was obtained through an official NHS pathway.
Claimant's Distress Over Tribunal Line of Questioning
The individual, who was applying for the disability benefit following an ADHD diagnosis, detailed their experience in a Reddit post dated 11 January 2026. They stated that during the hearing, the judge focused on the origin of their medical evidence.
The claimant had used the NHS 'Right to Choose' programme, which allows patients in England, with GP approval, to select an NHS-funded provider for assessment. This route is often used to bypass extensive NHS waiting lists. The claimant's diagnosis was provided by Psychiatry UK, a fully approved provider under this scheme.
According to the claimant's account, the judge repeatedly asked why no evidence from their GP had been submitted, focusing solely on the documentation from Psychiatry UK. When the claimant explained they took the 'Right to Choose' path for speed, the judge continued to 'grill' them on the lack of traditional NHS GP records.
'Are You Questioning If I Even Have ADHD?'
The situation escalated when the claimant directly asked, 'are you questioning if I even have ADHD?' The claimant reports that the judge replied, 'yes'.
Further distress was caused when the judge reportedly asked whether some of the claimant's described challenges were simply part of their personality rather than symptoms of ADHD. The claimant responded with frustration, questioning how they were supposed to differentiate between the two.
'My understanding is that Psychiatry UK is a lawful route and is approved by the NHS, so any ruling they give on my diagnosis shouldn't be questioned at all by anyone, let alone a non-health professional,' the claimant wrote, adding they felt 'incredibly discriminated against'. They are still awaiting the tribunal's final outcome.
Community Response and Legal Advice
The online community was quick to offer support and practical guidance. One user outlined the potential next steps if the decision is negative:
- Request the tribunal's written reasons for their decision.
- Ask for the audio recording of the proceedings.
- Within one month, apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, but only on grounds of an error in law.
They strongly recommended seeking specialist benefits advice. Other commenters clarified the legitimacy of the diagnosis route, with one stating: 'Totally irrelevant, Psychiatry UK IS NHS when done via right to choose, will be on your record and has an NHS logo.'
The discussion also highlighted the crisis in NHS waiting times for ADHD assessments, with one person noting a nephew had been waiting over three years, underscoring why the 'Right to Choose' option is critical for many.
In reply, the original claimant expressed dismay, noting they still waited 18 months via this route and felt the judge implied they had 'just paid for a diagnosis' to immediately claim PIP. 'It's been 5 years since I went to my GP about potentially having ADHD,' they added, rejecting any suggestion of a 'long con'.
The case raises serious questions about tribunal judges' understanding of modern NHS diagnostic pathways and the perceived validity of assessments conducted outside direct GP services, potentially creating a barrier for legitimate claimants.
