Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • kimberleycomper
    • By kimberleycomper 10th Mar 17, 5:00 PM
    • 4Posts
    • 2Thanks
    kimberleycomper
    PIP Mental health cuts
    • #1
    • 10th Mar 17, 5:00 PM
    PIP Mental health cuts 10th Mar 17 at 5:00 PM
    Dear fellow moneysavers,

    Have a look at the 38 degrees petitions website: Treat people with mental health issues fairly under PIP. Please sign the petition.

    The government’s changing the rules so that people with mental health problems can’t get an essential financial support called Personal Independence Payment (PIP). This is money that helps people pay for carers or therapy sessions. In other words, money needed to live with dignity.

    The government’s sneaking through the changes next week without a vote. But there’s a last-minute way that thousands of us could stop this cut happening. The plan is to use a special parliamentary process to force a proper vote in the House of Commons - and the bigger the public outcry, the more likely it is to happen.

    Will you join me and sign the petition to demand the government continue funding mental health benefits?

    Thanks,

    Kimberleycomper
Page 1
    • rockingbilly
    • By rockingbilly 11th Mar 17, 12:13 AM
    • 573 Posts
    • 201 Thanks
    rockingbilly
    • #2
    • 11th Mar 17, 12:13 AM
    • #2
    • 11th Mar 17, 12:13 AM
    Dear fellow moneysavers,

    Have a look at the 38 degrees petitions website: Treat people with mental health issues fairly under PIP. Please sign the petition.

    The government’s changing the rules so that people with mental health problems can’t get an essential financial support called Personal Independence Payment (PIP). This is money that helps people pay for carers or therapy sessions. In other words, money needed to live with dignity.

    The government’s sneaking through the changes next week without a vote. But there’s a last-minute way that thousands of us could stop this cut happening. The plan is to use a special parliamentary process to force a proper vote in the House of Commons - and the bigger the public outcry, the more likely it is to happen.

    Will you join me and sign the petition to demand the government continue funding mental health benefits?

    Thanks,

    Kimberleycomper
    Originally posted by kimberleycomper
    Are you seriously for real? The government are simply putting in place a rule that overrides the court decision. Otherwise like they did with DLA, the courts will end up setting out how PIP should work. Isn't that the job of the government?

    I for one got really annoyed with all of the attempts by the courts to decide how DLA should work and we ended up with a system that collapsed under the numbers that became eligible to get the award because of those court rulings. I remember why, how and for what reason DLA was first set up in 1992. Then compare that to how it ended up in 2013?
    • Muttleythefrog
    • By Muttleythefrog 11th Mar 17, 12:51 AM
    • 9,087 Posts
    • 17,070 Thanks
    Muttleythefrog
    • #3
    • 11th Mar 17, 12:51 AM
    • #3
    • 11th Mar 17, 12:51 AM
    Are you seriously for real? The government are simply putting in place a rule that overrides the court decision. Otherwise like they did with DLA, the courts will end up setting out how PIP should work. Isn't that the job of the government?

    I for one got really annoyed with all of the attempts by the courts to decide how DLA should work and we ended up with a system that collapsed under the numbers that became eligible to get the award because of those court rulings. I remember why, how and for what reason DLA was first set up in 1992. Then compare that to how it ended up in 2013?
    Originally posted by rockingbilly
    The judges have interpreted the law. The government intend to change it. The judges went through their reasoning... ultimately a 3 panel set of judges looked at other upper tribunal rulings to try remove the inconsistency of judgements. The government didn't like it. This distinctly does not look like the government seeking to change the law so original intent was realised... this looks distinctly like cost cutting using the guise of deranged judges which they've unfairly criticised for doing their job (almost Trumpesque in fashion!) Bear in mind that a submission to a tribunal from the DWP actually is that mobility 1d and 1f could apply to people who suffered precisely the disablement that the government wants to write specific wording to exclude.

    Op might want to add link to petition and tidy up the language of their post to reflect that these changes are much more specific and will not mean mentally ill claimants are precluded for a successful claim.
    Last edited by Muttleythefrog; 11-03-2017 at 10:27 AM.
    "Do not attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence" - rogerblack
    • Tommo1980
    • By Tommo1980 11th Mar 17, 7:48 AM
    • 271 Posts
    • 340 Thanks
    Tommo1980
    • #4
    • 11th Mar 17, 7:48 AM
    • #4
    • 11th Mar 17, 7:48 AM
    It's always difficult to take someone seriously when they use scaremongering tactics to make a point.

    PIP for those claiming solely on mental health grounds is not being stopped. A mobility award has always been unlikely in these circumstances.

    The daily care component allows for someone to claim carers, SDP to be payable if applicable and is the most significant in terms of monetary value.

    Tom
    Last edited by Tommo1980; 11-03-2017 at 8:09 AM.
    • kingfisherblue
    • By kingfisherblue 11th Mar 17, 8:32 AM
    • 7,042 Posts
    • 15,114 Thanks
    kingfisherblue
    • #5
    • 11th Mar 17, 8:32 AM
    • #5
    • 11th Mar 17, 8:32 AM
    Fully agree that the OP is scaremongering. Tommo gives a more factual account of what is happening.

    Serious question - if someone is agoraphobic and going out causes them serious psychological distress, how is extra mobility money, or a car, going to help? I'm not trying to be unsympathetic, but I just don't see how a car or the extra cash can help. In such serious cases, presumably a person is unlikely to attend a counsellor or therapist.
    • Muttleythefrog
    • By Muttleythefrog 11th Mar 17, 10:16 AM
    • 9,087 Posts
    • 17,070 Thanks
    Muttleythefrog
    • #6
    • 11th Mar 17, 10:16 AM
    • #6
    • 11th Mar 17, 10:16 AM
    Fully agree that the OP is scaremongering. Tommo gives a more factual account of what is happening.

    Serious question - if someone is agoraphobic and going out causes them serious psychological distress, how is extra mobility money, or a car, going to help? I'm not trying to be unsympathetic, but I just don't see how a car or the extra cash can help. In such serious cases, presumably a person is unlikely to attend a counsellor or therapist.
    Originally posted by kingfisherblue
    The story is poor in that it doesn't give the technical reality but I think the petition largely valid and of course there is notable political objection to what the government seeks to do here. I have gone into some detail on the Arms discussion board thread on this issue and don't want to drag it out here (although I probably will...lol.).

    The government appears to using what it has wrongly indicated is poor legal judgements (which were well considered and detailed and ultimately considered by 3 judge panel looking at other cases of upper tribunals relevant) as a cover to try to cut costs. (As I point out even the DWP in one tribunal case stated very clearly in their own words in written submission that someone with severe psychological distress could trigger 1d or 1f). It is clearly unhappy that so many people with MH problems are getting enhanced rate Daily Care. Targeting that though isn't so simple as the mobility as I imagine mental health claimants are scoring across many low scoring descriptors for DL. On mobility however they clearly want to try to prevent awards to people with MH problems or at least block anything beyond a standard award...this is easier to target with only 2 activities and one that largely excludes MH claimants (and from DWP POV seems to always exclude them). The reality is the DWP seem to be following their own guidelines which means that those who have benefitted from favourable legal rulings is likely very small especially since you have to also consider the disabilities in question would be very severe to trigger Mob 1d and certainly 1f. On Mobility 2 psychosomatic symptoms are typically seemingly ignored too as per DWP and private HCP dogmatic approaches. This ugly attempt to insert exclusions of particular conditions triggering descriptors when all currently invite along with the legislation an approach of looking at disability regardless of underlying cause (except in explanation) is troubling. I doubt it would be the end to such amendments and I expect Mob 2 could be next. The guise that this is 'tidying up laws which they've badly written (they say judges poorly interpret)' but I find that unconvincing a claim.

    On your point.. which I do feel is largely irrelevant as PIP only vaguely looks to make actual financial redress (and there are other anomalies that have not gone unnoticed in that regard by judges and me.. Mob 2 classic example)... there are many approaches that could be taken. In fact if you look at the descriptors you seem to be arguing that financial aid to someone triggering descriptor Mob 1e would be useless... yet that descriptor remains unaffected... in fact I trigger it and get a mobility award as a result. They're inserting an 'other than psychological distress' into 1c,1d,1f. In particular with 1d and 1f since they're about following a route presumably financial support could indeed be life changing... since if someone triggers the descriptors as they exist now then it implies that with support they may well be able to follow routes outdoors...i.e. go out successfully accompanied or perhaps even go out if say driven in a private car. It is probably for 1e that people could qualify for mobility for mental health reasons and see little use for the money - although of course in some instances support could work or private treatment help. Extra costs could be incurred to overcome or replace going out. I get out with support once in a while. I made a strong case for 1f applying but the DWP ignored effectively all I wrote including the supportive case law and facts of my case. I'd have pursued the matter to tribunal had my domestic circumstances been different.

    It is unfortunate that the Op misses a link and accuracy regarding the thread - and sadly the petition is what they've copied the misleading words of... the government could simply respond to this poor petition with "People with mental health problems can claim PIP and many do receive awards and will continue to do so...then some other stuff about Mental Health getting greater attention in the NHS". But there is an important matter at play I feel... this government continues to target the most vulnerable in society and perhaps they thought they could sneak these changes through under false guise... I hope they face some challenge at least so they will be less hasty in future with similar changes. PIP was meant to reduce the bill of disability... that is failing... so now we're going to see this type of approach to increasing the bar for 'disabled'.
    Last edited by Muttleythefrog; 11-03-2017 at 10:43 AM.
    "Do not attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence" - rogerblack
    • arenaman
    • By arenaman 17th Mar 17, 1:31 PM
    • 705 Posts
    • 129 Thanks
    arenaman
    • #7
    • 17th Mar 17, 1:31 PM
    • #7
    • 17th Mar 17, 1:31 PM
    Hmm, I'm not sure what's going on and what all this means but should I be worried?, my son's just been awarded the enhanced rate PIP for mobility, 0 for movement, 12 points for planning a journey.

    It's not anxiety, agoraphobia, depression but plain old autism he has.

    He has to be supervised at all times when out and about basically and can't find his own way around.

    I hope this isn't taken away now
    • arenaman
    • By arenaman 17th Mar 17, 1:53 PM
    • 705 Posts
    • 129 Thanks
    arenaman
    • #8
    • 17th Mar 17, 1:53 PM
    • #8
    • 17th Mar 17, 1:53 PM
    I'm reading a bit about revisions to the planning a journey part and have found this as the wording from 16th March 2017

    Planning and following journeys Activity 1
    a Can plan and follow the route of a journey unaided. Score 0
    b Needs prompting to be able to undertake any journey to avoid overwhelming
    psychological distress to the claimant. Score 4
    c For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot plan the route of a
    journey. Score 8
    d For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot follow the route of an
    unfamiliar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid. Score 10
    e Cannot undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming
    psychological distress to the claimant. Score 10
    f For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot follow the route of a
    familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation
    aid. Score 12

    Not exactly sure but is the "for reasons other than psychological distress" the important bit that's caused the fuss
    • arenaman
    • By arenaman 17th Mar 17, 2:09 PM
    • 705 Posts
    • 129 Thanks
    arenaman
    • #9
    • 17th Mar 17, 2:09 PM
    • #9
    • 17th Mar 17, 2:09 PM
    In my son's case he does get anxious and psychologically distressed as he doesn't like noise or crowds but he can't follow instructions very well either so couldn't plan and follow a journey even if he didn't get distressed. We provided a lot of evidence in the way of reports about his being unable to follow simple instructions without prompting The psychological distress is irrelevant to the task then, just an add on.

    Hopefully the changes won't affect us then
    Last edited by arenaman; 17-03-2017 at 2:23 PM.
    • poppy12345
    • By poppy12345 17th Mar 17, 6:01 PM
    • 696 Posts
    • 539 Thanks
    poppy12345
    In my son's case he does get anxious and psychologically distressed as he doesn't like noise or crowds but he can't follow instructions very well either so couldn't plan and follow a journey even if he didn't get distressed. We provided a lot of evidence in the way of reports about his being unable to follow simple instructions without prompting The psychological distress is irrelevant to the task then, just an add on.

    Hopefully the changes won't affect us then
    Originally posted by arenaman
    They won't affect you this time but at the review they more than likely will.
    • arenaman
    • By arenaman 17th Mar 17, 6:55 PM
    • 705 Posts
    • 129 Thanks
    arenaman
    They won't affect you this time but at the review they more than likely will.
    Originally posted by poppy12345
    I've interpreted the changes as an attempt to "weed out" people (maybe falsely) claiming enhanced rate mobility because they've got anxiety or panic about a journey rather than those with an underlying cognitive impairment (which my son has) preventing him being able to plan out and travel a journey, am I wrong?
    Last edited by arenaman; 17-03-2017 at 7:02 PM.
    • arenaman
    • By arenaman 17th Mar 17, 6:59 PM
    • 705 Posts
    • 129 Thanks
    arenaman
    The second decision1
    held that someone who cannot make a journey without
    assistance due to psychological distress should be scored in the same way as a
    person who needs assistance because they have difficulties navigating. By way of
    example, the first group might include some people with isolated social phobia or
    anxiety, whereas the second group might include people who are blind or who have
    cognitive impairments. The Regulations amend the relevant descriptors to reinstate
    the distinction between these two groups.
    • Shecar
    • By Shecar 17th Mar 17, 7:01 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 30 Thanks
    Shecar
    I've interpreted this as an attempt to weed out people claiming just because they've got anxiety or panic about a journey rather than those with an underlying cognitive impairment (which my son has) preventing him being able to plan out and travel a journey, am I wrong?
    Originally posted by arenaman
    I believe, as in the case of my daughter, that the cognitive disability will mean your son will meet the criteria - I was told, in simple terms, that as my daughter was born with the problem, that she would qualify for help under the new rules. People who have 'developed symptoms' through stress related illness/PTSD may fail to qualify
    Very happy early retired Mum, surrounded by the Welsh hills, our dogs, cats, goats and poultry

    • arenaman
    • By arenaman 17th Mar 17, 7:14 PM
    • 705 Posts
    • 129 Thanks
    arenaman
    I believe, as in the case of my daughter, that the cognitive disability will mean your son will meet the criteria - I was told, in simple terms, that as my daughter was born with the problem, that she would qualify for help under the new rules. People who have 'developed symptoms' through stress related illness/PTSD may fail to qualify
    Originally posted by Shecar
    Thanks, I hope that's the case from our POV
    • Muttleythefrog
    • By Muttleythefrog 17th Mar 17, 9:00 PM
    • 9,087 Posts
    • 17,070 Thanks
    Muttleythefrog
    I've interpreted the changes as an attempt to "weed out" people (maybe falsely) claiming enhanced rate mobility because they've got anxiety or panic about a journey rather than those with an underlying cognitive impairment (which my son has) preventing him being able to plan out and travel a journey, am I wrong?
    Originally posted by arenaman
    Well I think I've already covered my political view on this. My view in relation to your case.... no I don't think you will be affected. The government this time around want to target people getting mobility awards due to classical mental health problems rather than classically physical disablements or classical cognitive impairment due to brain malfunction (for lack of better terminology). What it has been argued (successfully by a probably small number) by people with mental health problems is that they can suffer impairment that prevents them following a route (and all PIP descriptors can be triggered by any type of underlying problem in theory.. it has been the disablement that is tested for). It's certainly a very real issue... yesterday for the first time this year I was able to go outdoors (I get standard rate mobility for scoring 10 points descriptor 1e) but at a point I got detached from my wife... yes I suffered extreme anxiety but my first problem was that I walked into a barrier that I did not see... today I am in significant pain as a result... it took less than 20 seconds unaccompanied for me to be badly injured unable to follow a route.. entirely due to mental health problems. But anyway my case is done and dusted...the DWP were unresponsive to legal challenge or my evidence or factual claims even surrounding the medical assessment day...but just a good example again of why descriptor f (or d) could be applicable to people with mental health problems. But like I say I don't think in your case there will be impact by current changes detailed.. they will fall into line with a more classical cognitive interpretation and in theory be unaffected... as should those claimants presumably like me who trigger 1e which seems most applicable for someone with severe mental health problems that largely prevents going outdoors.
    Last edited by Muttleythefrog; 17-03-2017 at 9:10 PM.
    "Do not attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence" - rogerblack
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,745Posts Today

5,917Users online

Martin's Twitter