PIP - Consultation on the PIP assessment Moving around activity

dori2o

Heres a link to a survey on the We are Spartacus website.

http://survey.spartacusforum.org.uk/index.php?sid=64787&lang=en

Our survey has been developed to enable us to make an evidence-based community response to the consultation; it will be available for 2 weeks, until Monday 15 July.

http://wearespartacus.org.uk/

Please if possible provide your views.

dori2o

Just bringing this post back upto the top.

Please don't forget the consultation ends on the 5thAugust. Even if we believe the Govt will do all it can to ignore the responses, please send something to them, it is only a small opportunity to make the necessary changes and all responses are valuable.

Also if you can, take the we are spartacus quiz. It will help them to form the basis of their submission to the consultation.

swheatley

I already submitted my response through another website. However it is important to have your voice heard. If people don't act and be heard then nothing will ever change.

dori2o

first draft

The decision by the Department for Work and Pensions to reduce the benchmark distance to determine eligibility for the enhanced rate mobility component of PIP from the 50m which existed under Disability Living Allowance, to the 20m which is currently the case with Personal Independence Payment is completely immoral and utterly discriminatory. It will lead to an increase in social isolation and (ironically given the name of the new benefit) a loss of independence.
At no stage during the original consultation process with disabled people, charities, stakeholders, was the proposal of reducing the benchmark distance for eligibility to the enhanced mobility rate ever mentioned. Therefore the original consultation cannot be a fair and true reflection of the people who were invited to take part.
When you take everything into account there is little difference to the disabled claimant between being able to mobilise 20m, 50m or even 100m.
There is nothing that can normally be achieved by walking either distance, but this is especially true of the 20m benchmark.
In the report ‘Inclusive Mobility’ commissioned by the Government, the guidelines include the following measures which are necessary to ensure that disabled people are not left at a significant disadvantage;
· Off-Street car parks should be provided as close as possible, preferably within 50m, of the facilities served by the car park
· Seats and perches should be placed at regular intervals along paths in the countryside. They should be placed no more than 100m apart.
· In commonly used pedestrian areas, and transport interchanges and stations, seats should be provided at intervals of no more than 50 – 100m.
The proposed change will have a significant effect on almost every disabled person, as the majority can walk at least some distance.
For some there is a requirement to walk some distance, rather than a choice. For example, getting to their place of work, to a Doctors surgery, to Hospital appointments from a car park, bus stop. A need to walk to get from one method of transport to another at a transport interchange.
In these examples it is almost always a necessity to walk more than 20m in order to complete the purpose of the journey.
The fact that people have to force themselves to walk these distances in order to fulfil the purpose of the journey does not mean they have the ability to do it safely, reliably or repeatedly, especially without suffering significant amounts of pain and discomfort from the physical act of walking.
The change in the benchmark distance, which the DWP included in the regulations without declaring their intention to make the change in the original consultation document, will act as a barrier to people who need to make these essential journeys (to work, to doctors, to hospital for treatment or emergencies), and will stop people from attempting these journeys in future for fear of being labelled a cheat or for fear of being investigated, despite not being able to make these journeys safely, reliably, repeatedly.
There is an assumption that all disabled people with mobility problems have access to a car. Mainly the assumption is they have a ‘free’ car provided to them via the Motability scheme, along with their disability benefits. This simply is not the case, and for many their only method of transport if the public transport network.
In order for people to use this network it inevitably means that an individual will be forced to walk more than 20m to reach a place where public transport can be accessed.
The change of the benchmark distance, and the loss of benefits for disabled people that the Government has projected due to this reduction in the benchmark distance will not only affect the disabled person themselves, but the whole of that persons household.
Whilst their disability benefit may have stopped, it doesn’t mean that this person magically recovers from their condition, they will still have to fund the additional costs associated with living day to day with their condition, such as private treatment or therapies that the NHS refuses to provide, or cannot provide in a timely manner. Medications that the NHS will not/cannot provide.
Those affected may have to make the choice between continuing with these treatments/medications, which may be the only things that keep them fit enough to get to and remain in work, and not paying for these necessary treatments which could lead to a severe reduction in their ability to live day to day, or even remain in work.
These people, and their immediate families face a significant financial impact as a direct result of this unnecessary, and immoral change. It will also have a significant negative impact on other Government departments and third sector services, especially services such as Access to Work and their ability to provide people with mobility difficulties who have lost their Motability car, or can no longer afford to run their own car or travel by public transport, with funding to enable them to get to and from work.
Research has proven that Disability Benefits actually save the taxpayer many times the amount they cost. Restricting the number of people who will be eligible to the enhanced rate of the mobility component won’t make their needs go away or cure them of their ills, it will simply transfer the costs onto other Government departments as explained above. The additional costs for these departments could be in the hundreds of millions of pounds.
There will be significantly increased costs put on to the accounts of social care and healthcare services, and these changes could also lead to increased Mental Health issues as more and more people become socially inactive and suffer from social isolation and a loss of independence.
The Government have used their position to spread the lies that being a welfare claimant of any kind makes them a scrounger, or a shirker. That these people, including the disabled, believe they are above the need to work, that those claiming disability benefits are lazy. The Government claim that being on Disability benefits acts as a disincentive to work.
The actual facts however paint a much different picture to that which the Government is trying to imprint in the minds of the public.
At least 60% of the disabled people in the UK do some form of work, either paid or voluntary, and for the majority of these people it is these Disability benefits, either the money itself or the Mobility car that the money is exchanged for, that makes the possibility of working a reality.
Therefore, a loss of benefit will itself act as a disincentive to work as it will prevent people from being able to afford to travel to work (either in their own car or on public transport), or to continue to pay for treatments/medications/therapies which enable them to remain fit enough to attend work.
In conclusion, the only way to ensure that Personal Independence Payment remains true to the Government principles of ensuring that all disabled people should be able to participate in society is to support the disabled and implement a clear 50m or 100m benchmark distance to determine eligibility for the enhanced mobility component of PIP . This would ensure that the independence and social mobility of hundreds of thousands of disabled people with significant mobility difficulties is protected and they can, in the Governments own words, ‘participate’.

Brassedoff

I have contributed to it too. Not wanting to pick holes in it but, "Since most wheelchair users can walk a little, the use of 20 metres as the benchmark distance runs the risk that disabled people with significant mobility difficulties – people who can walk 20 metres but not 50 metres – lose essential adapted cars or specially converted wheelchair accessible vehicles supplied via the Motability scheme"

Is it not the case that you cannot mobilise the 20 metres or not? 50 metres is a fair distance, I could never assail 20 metres with the aid of crutches and my leg braces.

There is a large body of "disabled" who have "walked" right into this. They are the ones who jump out of the car in the disabled spot and briskly walk into the Shop/Bank/Post Office.

This has been argued on here so many times, the last being Doctors Parking Spot Gate. The "not all disabled have physical signs" troop, or "my child would have ran into the surgery" response, has been the type of "disabilities" that are effectively coming home to roost with the changing of these descriptors.

People may not like it, but you can see the exact group who will make up the savings. By restricting it to provable difficulties of less than 20 metres, you could cut our 500,000 claimants from the current HRM to LRM in the stroke of a pen.and I don't think that a change of government of any colour will change the decision.

IMHO, they are going to go and allow HRM to those who use an issued chair by wheelchair services. We all know how difficult it is to get an assessment, on top of that, you have to have weighty proof you cannot mobilise over several metres from a Consultant, Physio, OT, then Wheelchair services. A sudden rush of applicants for these assessments will be expected and no doubt turned down.

Not saying its right or wrong, just my penny's worth on the way they are going in order to meet their targets. There's going to be a lot of people using the bus or taxi's. the valued blue badges will go too no doubt.

dori2o

Brassedoff wrote: »

I have contributed to it too. Not wanting to pick holes in it but, "Since most wheelchair users can walk a little, the use of 20 metres as the benchmark distance runs the risk that disabled people with significant mobility difficulties – people who can walk 20 metres but not 50 metres – lose essential adapted cars or specially converted wheelchair accessible vehicles supplied via the Motability scheme"

Is it not the case that you cannot mobilise the 20 metres or not? 50 metres is a fair distance, I could never assail 20 metres with the aid of crutches and my leg braces. The point is, what could you do addittionally with an extra 30m? The answer is not a lot.

From my home to the bus stop is more than 50m.

From my home to the tram station is more than 50m

From the tram station car park to the tram platform in my town is more than 50m.

From the closest disabled bay at the supermarket, 50m wouldn't get me to the first aisle.

If being able to mobilise just 50m means that there is little you can achieve from making that journey, then 20m is even more restrictive.

There is a large body of "disabled" who have "walked" right into this. They are the ones who jump out of the car in the disabled spot and briskly walk into the Shop/Bank/Post Office.

The problem is that Blue Badges are not only issued on the basis of having a disability benefit award.

This has been argued on here so many times, the last being Doctors Parking Spot Gate. The "not all disabled have physical signs" troop, or "my child would have ran into the surgery" response, has been the type of "disabilities" that are effectively coming home to roost with the changing of these descriptors.

People may not like it, but you can see the exact group who will make up the savings. By restricting it to provable difficulties of less than 20 metres, you could cut our 500,000 claimants from the current HRM to LRM in the stroke of a pen.and I don't think that a change of government of any colour will change the decision.
But you have to look at the fairness of the decision. As I described above, there is very little difference in what is achieveable when you compare being able to walk 20m and being able to walk 50m.

IMHO, they are going to go and allow HRM to those who use an issued chair by wheelchair services. We all know how difficult it is to get an assessment, on top of that, you have to have weighty proof you cannot mobilise over several metres from a Consultant, Physio, OT, then Wheelchair services. A sudden rush of applicants for these assessments will be expected and no doubt turned down.

It's not possible for them to do that as that is not what the PIP descriptors say. There is no link in the PIP descriptors between someone who has, or has not had a wheelchair services review. This would lead the DWP open to a significant amount of tribunal claims.

Not saying its right or wrong, just my penny's worth on the way they are going in order to meet their targets. There's going to be a lot of people using the bus or taxi's. the valued blue badges will go too no doubt.

You seem to have fallen into the trap that I believe the DWP will fall into, and that is by not applying the reliably, repeatedly and safely test.

They will assume that because a person can walk 20+ meters in one go, because they have no choice but to walk more than 20 meters in order to get onto public transport, into work, they will lose the right to claim the enhanced rate of the mobility element of PIP.

Very little emphasis will be put onto the reliably, repeatedly, safely aspect of the descriptors, even if that person makes it clear that they would not be able to repeat that distance again for a number of hours, or that the act of making that journey caused significant pain which affected them for the rest of the day, or even that making that journey was physically or medically unsafe for them to do so.

I have no choice but to walk more than 20m (it's just short of 55m) every morning to get from my car to my desk. I can't drive right to my desk, for one the car wouldn't fit in the lift. But I can't make that journey again for a good 2 or 3 hours, and even walking a small distance to the kitchen, or to the toilet (both of which are less than 20m away) at work would be significantly more difficult for that period of time.

If I leave something in the car, my dinner/drinks for example, then I have to either wait for the pain (sometimes swelling) to recede which takes 2 -3 hours or more and then go for it, or ask my friend/manager if they would pop down for it.

Doctors surgeries, Hospitals, transport interchanges/stations, supermarkets, shopping areas, housing developments, have all been designed to standards which have a benchmark distance for ensuring disabled people have easy access to facilities. These benchmark distances are set at between 50m and 100m.

To reduce the benchmark distance for disability benefits from 50m to 20m is grossly immoral, and will leave 'those who need the help the most' without the help they need.

Dunroamin

Well, this could've been left out for a start!

" Seats and perches should be placed at regular intervals along paths in the countryside. They should be placed no more than 100m apart."

Impractical and undesirable!

GlasweJen

I don't see the problem with 20 meters, high mobility should be for the most severely disabled.

The public have lost trust in the blue badge system so councils tightened up their blue badge criteria to pretty much people on high mobility or who would qualify for high mobility and yet we still see people skipping from car to shop/bank/doctors surgery from the blue badge space.

I've been hounded for using a wheelchair and I can't even stand up unaided, we need to clamp down on less severe disabilities being exaggerated to claim higher DLA/PIP awards but the lead swingers always seem to know how to get through new assessments.

tokenfield

GlasweJen wrote: »

I don't see the problem with 20 meters, high mobility should be for the most severely disabled.

The public have lost trust in the blue badge system so councils tightened up their blue badge criteria to pretty much people on high mobility or who would qualify for high mobility and yet we still see people skipping from car to shop/bank/doctors surgery from the blue badge space.

I've been hounded for using a wheelchair and I can't even stand up unaided, we need to clamp down on less severe disabilities being exaggerated to claim higher DLA/PIP awards but the lead swingers always seem to know how to get through new assessments.

Absolutely right!!

20 metres is approx. 82'. For someone that can only walk that distance and nothing further deserves every bit of financial support via PIP.

To stick with the 50 metres, as in DLA that is 164'! Are people trying to tell me that if you can walk 164' but no further you should be classified as unable to walk? Do people actually realise what 164' represents? Try thinking of the width of a football pitch! If anybody can walk that distance in my eyes there can't be that much wrong with them!

Richie-from-the-Boro

- width like Andy & Flo's posts can vary
- in this case a footy field width, varies by 100%
- from just 50 [150 foot] to 100 yards [300 foot].



BTW, my schoolboy maths makes 20 meters 65 foot .. .. not 82' which is not approximated but a convenient 17% out !