PIP Assessors Guide/Help

jasonbudd1984

Hi

I am in the process of making an application for PIP on mental health grounds due to having increasing problems over the last year, after my problems coming back after several years being ok and I was on DLA back then.

I found that there were some helpful guides to DLA last time, and even the guide the assessors use when reviewing the application. All I am trying to do is make the best case as mental health is often difficult to get across.

As such if anyone has any advice, links, guides or any information at all I'd be really grateful as its been fairly difficult to accept I was back at this point, but thats normally half the battle...

JB

billywilly

jasonbudd1984 wrote: »

Hi

I am in the process of making an application for PIP on mental health grounds due to having increasing problems over the last year, after my problems coming back after several years being ok and I was on DLA back then.

I found that there were some helpful guides to DLA last time, and even the guide the assessors use when reviewing the application. All I am trying to do is make the best case as mental health is often difficult to get across.

As such if anyone has any advice, links, guides or any information at all I'd be really grateful as its been fairly difficult to accept I was back at this point, but thats normally half the battle...

JB

Why would you want to go to those lengths? Surely the answer is to put the truth down on the claim form and let the DWP decision maker make the decision? That's what I did. Mind you I did go from HRM & MRC (DLA) to no points at all for PIP!!

pmlindyloo

I'll start you off:

https://www.rethink.org/living-with-mental-illness/money-issues-benefits-employment/personal-independence-payment

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/368122/pip-assessment-guide.pdf

Do some googling - ''application for PIP - mental illness''

rogerblack

pmlindyloo wrote: »

I'll start you off:

The PIP assessment guide is indeed very useful.
However, it's vitally important to understand it's an assessment guide, it's not law.

To be clear - the general principles tend to be accurate - it's just the interpretation of the law may be a bit dodgy.

The DWP tend to end up with guidance shading quite far over to the least generous possible interpretation.

For example - skimming.
3.2.13 - on risks and safety.
'When considering if an activity can be done safely, it is important to consider the risk of a serious adverse effect occuring. However the risk that a serious event may occur is not enough, it has to be likely to occur'.

This is plainly ridiculous.
The legislation says 'safely' - it does not go into details of how the risk should be computed.

The above definition clearly fails to capture what the word 'safely' means.
For example - if I am only 1% likely to break an arm over the course of 20 years when having a bath (say) - it is at least arguable that I can reasonably be said to be able to do it safely.

If however, I have a 5% chance of dying every time I do an activity, I think very few tribunals would accept that I can do this 'safely' - even though the guidance above states I can.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/377/regulation/4 is the actual legislation it's based on.
'(4) In this regulation—

(a)“safely” means in a manner unlikely to cause harm to C or to another person, either during or after completion of the activity;'

You can see where they're coming from.
If you flip that over, you get that to be unsafe 'means in a manner likely to cause harm'.

The problem is that you can't read particular words in isolation, you have to consider them in context.

'unlikely to cause harm' - read as a whole - clearly does not mean 'with a greater than 50% chance of causing harm.'
Because what harm means is not defined.

It needs to be decided on the basis of the whole phrase.
Someone who 51% of the time they get out of a daily bath, has a rash for half an hour is clearly likely to be able to do it safely.
Someone who 1% of the time they get out of a daily bath, dies, is clearly not safe.

To sum up - it's worth asking if you have specific questions about descriptors that on any plausible reading could apply to you - even if the DWP position is they do not.
Unless the DWP has the backing of caselaw in their guidance, the guidance may be pessimistic.

billywilly

rogerblack wrote: »

The PIP assessment guide is indeed very useful.
However, it's vitally important to understand it's an assessment guide, it's not law.

To be clear - the general principles tend to be accurate - it's just the interpretation of the law may be a bit dodgy.

The DWP tend to end up with guidance shading quite far over to the least generous possible interpretation.

For example - skimming.
3.2.13 - on risks and safety.
'When considering if an activity can be done safely, it is important to consider the risk of a serious adverse effect occuring. However the risk that a serious event may occur is not enough, it has to be likely to occur'.

This is plainly ridiculous.
The legislation says 'safely' - it does not go into details of how the risk should be computed.

The above definition clearly fails to capture what the word 'safely' means.
For example - if I am only 1% likely to break an arm over the course of 20 years when having a bath (say) - it is at least arguable that I can reasonably be said to be able to do it safely.

If however, I have a 5% chance of dying every time I do an activity, I think very few tribunals would accept that I can do this 'safely' - even though the guidance above states I can.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/377/regulation/4 is the actual legislation it's based on.
'(4) In this regulation—

(a)“safely” means in a manner unlikely to cause harm to C or to another person, either during or after completion of the activity;'

You can see where they're coming from.
If you flip that over, you get that to be unsafe 'means in a manner likely to cause harm'.

The problem is that you can't read particular words in isolation, you have to consider them in context.

'unlikely to cause harm' - read as a whole - clearly does not mean 'with a greater than 50% chance of causing harm.'
Because what harm means is not defined.

It needs to be decided on the basis of the whole phrase.
Someone who 51% of the time they get out of a daily bath, has a rash for half an hour is clearly likely to be able to do it safely.
Someone who 1% of the time they get out of a daily bath, dies, is clearly not safe.

To sum up - it's worth asking if you have specific questions about descriptors that on any plausible reading could apply to you - even if the DWP position is they do not.
Unless the DWP has the backing of caselaw in their guidance, the guidance may be pessimistic.

And by that statement people are likely to fail to be awarded a benefit, not because the 'law' says so but because of the way the DWP have put their own interpretation on the law.
That is why there are some very peverse decisions being made. You can either accept the DWP's version or challenge it. In challenging it you have to show what the law requires, provide evidence to support that the law applies to the claimant and finally that the DWP decision is wrong because of it's own interpretation is wrong.
Should you eventually win at a Tribunal, the DWP may well challenge it as there is very little if any case law for PIP. The DWP will always want their interpretation to succeed.
Quite a job if you are up for it.