Attn : rogerblack, and others

equitable

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- before the 2012 turkey is even cold, here's your next years reference library, all in one place - New Regulations, no crystal ball needed.

Already passed and live

ESA [Sanctions][Amendment] Regs 2012 - in force 3rd December 2012
Benefit Cap [HB] Regs 2012- comes into force April 15th 2013
JSA [Sanctions][Amendment] Regs 2012 - in force 22nd October 2012

Draft, not yet passed and not yet live

Social Security [PIP] Regs 2012
Transitional PIP Draft Regs - Dec 2012 - comes into force 8th April] 2013
DLA, AA and CA Draft Amendment Regs - Dec 2012
UC Regs - comes into force April 29th 2013
UC [Transitional Provisions] Regs comes into force April 29th 2013
JSA Regs - comes into force April 29th 2013
ESA Regs - comes into force April 29th 2013
UC, PIP JSA & ESA [Decisions and Appeals] Regs 2013
Social Security [Payments on Account of Benefit] Regs 2013
HB [Amendment] Regs 2012
UC, PIP and Working-age Benefits [Claims and Payments] Regs 2012
PIP [still draft proposed] Assessment Criteria

Draft PIP claim forms released Feb 2013, standard letters and other resources :

- forms are here
- standard letters (notifications) are here
- individuals check how Personal Independence Payment affects you tool, here
- 'organisational’ - ‘toolkit here

Updates from HOC & HOL Library released Feb 2013 - relevant to the above :

The Housing Element of UC - Last updated: 6 February 2013
The State Pension Uprating 2010 onwards - Last updated:7 February 2013
The Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill - Last updated: 6 February 2013

Just what does all this mean in £sd terms

Overview and in my view the greatest mind in accurate guesstimates evidenced over the years thinks this is what will be the real-world outcome

- some one individual noticeably diligent with their continual rolling updates !

GlasweJen

Reading that PIP thing, seems like you only get points for needing supervision if being supervised will prevent you from hurting yourself - would epilepsy/blackouts fall into this category or would the fact that the supervising person can't stop the episode from occurring mean that claimants with epilepsy/blackouts either can't score or have to declare that they can't do the task rather than they need supervision for the task?

rogerblack

GlasweJen wrote: »

if being supervised will prevent you from hurting yourself - would epilepsy/blackouts fall into this category or would the fact that the supervising person can't stop the episode from occurring

As I understand it, the fact they can't stop the episode occurring is irrelevant.
It's the risk due to the episode that matters.
Can someone supervising help the person do the activity, without significant risk.
For example, if someone has an externally visible sign that a fit is due - but they can't pick this up, if someone supervises them, they can tell them to stop the task and sit down in a safe position.
In some cases this will remove most or all of the risk.

GlasweJen

But then I don't have any visible sign that I'm going to black out - it just happens. Does that disqualify me from PIP?

rogerblack

GlasweJen wrote: »

But then I don't have any visible sign that I'm going to black out - it just happens. Does that disqualify me from PIP?

To quote page 3 of
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/pip-toolkit-factsheet-002-assessment-criteria.pdf

Risk and Safety
When considering whether an activity can be undertaken safely it is important to consider the risk of a serious adverse event occurring. However, the risk that a serious adverse event may occur due to impairments is insufficient – the adverse event has to be likely to occur.

Support from other people
The assessment takes into account where claimants need the support of another person or persons to carry out an activity – including where that person has to carry out the activity for them in its entirety. The criteria refer to various types of support:
•
Supervision is a need for the continuous presence of another person to avoid a serious adverse event from occurring to the claimant. The risk must be likely to occur in the absence of such supervision. To apply, supervision must be required for the full duration of the activity.
•
Prompting is support provided by another person by reminding or encouraging a claimant to undertake or complete a task or explaining it to them but not physically helping them. To apply, this only needs to be required for part of the activity.
•
Assistance is support that requires the presence and physical intervention of another person to help the claimant complete theactivity - including doing some but not all of the activity in question. To apply, assistance only needs to be required for part of the activity.

A number of descriptors also refer to another person being required to complete the activity in its entirety. These descriptors would apply where the claimant is unable to reliably undertake any of the activity for themselves, even with help.

Taking for example 'cooking'.
If you black out with no warning, then it is hard to argue you can safely cook, without someone doing the entire task. This would go past 'assistance'.
In addition to there being a severe risk, there is also the question of if you can do it 'reliably' - if you fall over unconcious while doing something , even at no risk to yourself - you can't do that task.
If this happens on most days, then this descriptor would apply.

You don't meet 'can prepare and cook a simple meal unaided'.

A particularly stingy DM could take the view that you can prepare food safely in a microwave, from frozen.
Or that you reasonably require assistance, as you can't safely handle hot food (for example, you may black out while removing boiling soup from the microwave).
If you can't BOTH prepare, and cook food - you get 8 points.

I fail to see how this is a simplification.

Richie-from-the-Boro

There is no‘reliably'’ in the gen 3 PIP descriptor regs. They 'clouded' that out with the cannot at all descriptor for example "Cannot wash and bathe at all " "Cannot either move around at all" "Cannot, either aided or unaided"

GlasweJen

It's the lack of "reliably" that threw me.

In terms of mobility I can't stand up so that box is ticked but care wise I can theoretically do all of those things but in reality I can't cook for myself as I have blacked out over a gas hob before, I always shower with someone else on hand so that they can move me if I black out, I never lock the door when i go to the bathroom, I wear hearing aids/lip read in conversation and I can just about manage to dress myself unaided but sometimes need help with getting my jumper off and brushing my hair.

Medicated I black out 3 or 4 times a week plus have night time seizures.

Not sure how I'm going to fair with this PIP malarkey.

schrodie

rogerblack wrote: »

A particularly stingy DM could take the view that you can prepare food safely in a microwave, from frozen.

If they did then they may be contravening the PIP Notes which says with respect to food preparation:-

A simple meal is a cooked one-course meal for one from fresh ingredients.

dori2o

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

There is no‘reliably'’ in the gen 3 PIP descriptor regs. They 'clouded' that out with the cannot at all descriptor for example "Cannot wash and bathe at all " "Cannot either move around at all" "Cannot, either aided or unaided"

Isn't this completely against what Esther McVey said to the Commons Comittee last week or the week before. That the word reliably would now be included not only in the guidance for DM's and HP's but also in the descriptors themselves, therefore enshrining that in law?

I'll have to read through the transcript again, but I am sure that this word was one of the ones she explicitly mentioned.

equitable

Esther McVey MP - Minister for Disabled People - 03 January 2013

‘Reliably, repeatedly, safely and in a timely manner’ We note that the terms ‘reliably, repeatedly, safely and in a timely manner’ have been reworded, are not contained within the regulations, and are now intended to be included within the assessment guidance.

"When such terms are only included in guidance, they are not
applied to the descriptors during the assessment process"

"It is vital to establish whether the terms are being used accurately or even at all"

"We note that the terms ‘reliably, repeatedly, safely and in a timely manner’ have been reworded, are not contained within the regulations, and are now intended to be included within the assessment guidance"

"Whether a person with the condition can undertake an activity reliably and is especially important to assessing an individual’s capacity to move around"

Esther McVey MP - Minister for Disabled People Tuesday 5 February 2013

If individuals can walk more than 20 metres, but cannot do so in a way that is safe, repeatable and reliable, they should receive 12 points and the enhanced rate