New PIP claim

rogerblack

melbury wrote: »

I only ask because a work colleague said my OH should claim for PIP if he is unable to go anywhere alone or if he had to use public transport.

Unless said work colleague has actually read the PIP regulations in detail, and understood them - as well as had clear materials available for them to give to others to read at their leisure - it's probably wise to take it with a huge pinch of salt.

In general, PIP is about how your disability affects you. Certain aids are taken into account, and may gain points.

If you can't do a task even with an aid, that will generally gain you more points.

Enhanced rate mobility might be gotten for claimants who:
Two days out of three can't walk 20m repeatably. (12 points) The rest of the time, they are much less restricted.

Or:
Due to OCD, take over twice the amount of time to plan a journey as a non-disabled person might. (8)
Needs encouragement and support to be able to walk more than very short distances (4). (due to being unable to do them reliably without)

Or: Due to severe depression, can't reliably walk the required distance, as they can't get out of bed. (12 points).

The 'mobility' descriptors do not require only physical functioning.

Mrs_Ryan

I got four points for mobility because I use crutches and find it painful to walk. I got nothing for the issues I have with travelling (extreme anxiety and psychological damage caused after a car crash a few years ago- I often have panic attacks so bad I can have seizures) OH currently gets low DLA mobility as although he cannot use public transport (he is extremely delusional and can sometimes display anti social behaviour) he can and does drive safely and the restriction on his licence was lifted last year. My OH also has very little short term memory and I have to accompany him to appointments as the last time I didn't his medication was stopped and he didn't understand why leading to an almost immediate overdose as he was so worried about not getting it. Next time he had an appointment and I couldn't go as I was in hospital he just didn't go as he was worried about happening again. Like melbury my OH is the same but he's a perfectly safe driver.

rogerblack

Mrs_Ryan wrote: »

I got four points for mobility because I use crutches and find it painful to walk. I got nothing for the issues I have with travelling (extreme anxiety and psychological damage caused after a car crash a few years ago- I often have panic attacks so bad I can have seizures)

If you cannot do a thing repeatably, reliably and safely, in under twice the time it would take a normal person, on at least half the days a year, you cannot for the purposes of PIP do it.

There may be arguments - depending on how often often is, and if you are avoiding doing things because of the possibility of them that you should be properly entitled to points for 'planning and following journeys'.

Does it help if you are accompanied?
Can you - most of the time, safely, as many times as required in a day, not having to take long rests to avoid panicing, or delay until you're feeling well, without another person or aids - plan and follow the route of a journey unaccompanied.

This would not be a short journey 'can you walk over there' - but something that would actually require planning - for example - bus timetables, and getting on/off busses or other public transport.

If you can't, then you likely should have gained some points in the 'planning and following journeys' section.

A. Can plan and follow the route of a journey unaided. 0 points
B. Needs prompting to be able to undertake any journey to avoid overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant.4
C. Cannot plan the route of a journey.8
D. Cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey without another person, assistance dog, or orientation aid.10
E. Cannot undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant.10
F. Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid. 12 points

C. for example would apply if you can't do the planning for a route in under twice the time of a normal person - perhaps because you're trying to work out a route that would allow you to accomodate panic attacks.
E. May apply if you are avoiding this due to likely panic attacks.
F. If with help, you can avoid panic attacks often enough that you can be said to be able to do this 'reliably', but do not meet any of the other lower-scoring descriptors more often. (simplified)

You can appeal a PIP decision up to 13 months after the decision has been made.
Any points awarded for the other component are at risk.

AllSpent

There are some good points, but it seems activities 11 and 12 are being conflated here as well. They are 2 distinct activites in relation to PIP.

Journey, either familiar or unfamiliar, simply means a local journey, not a "round-the-world" trip or weekend in Las Vegas (however pleasant each of those may appear).

This descriptor (11) is really asking and focusing in on whether there are any cognitive, mental-health, or sensory problems present - and whether they are presenting a problem the majority of the time. Of course, a mental-health problem could give rise to a cognitive or functional problem, so there is some degree of overlapping in these two.

What descriptor 11 isn't about is your mobility, which is covered in 12. Again, reading the defintions of what DWP mean by "walk" and "plan" or "journey" somewhat demystifies the questions being asked.

I think the main reason behind number 11 is to make clear distinctions between the three types of possible impairment I mentioned earlier. In terrms of the descriptor choices wihtin 11, some may argue they are non-sensical, biased, or unfair, - but that is a seperate dsicussion.

In answer to the OP, saying he gets "easily confused" is a bit vague. Why does he, for how long, how often, to what degree, is it treated, diagnosed? These are some of the questions that may be asked.

I would venture that if he is able to go out on his own in the car then he would likely be able to plan a journey. If he is only managing this with another person present, one would question whether he is indeed driving in safe and appropriate manner.

On this last point, I am merely trying to highlight some possible inconsistencies and how they may be resolved.

rogerblack

AllSpent wrote: »

Journey, either familiar or unfamiliar, simply means a local journey, not a "round-the-world" trip or weekend in Las Vegas (however pleasant each of those may appear).

'Local journey' however doesn't mean 'over there' - to a location in sight. It can't meaningfully, or - for example 'Cannot plan the route of a journey' is not achievable by anyone.

This descriptor (11) is really asking and focusing in on whether there are any cognitive, mental-health, or sensory problems present - and whether they are presenting a problem the majority of the time. Of course, a mental-health problem could give rise to a cognitive or functional problem, so there is some degree of overlapping in these two.

What descriptor 11 isn't about is your mobility, which is covered in 12. Again, reading the defintions of what DWP mean by "walk" and "plan" or "journey" somewhat demystifies the questions being asked.

Definitions are important here, and what the law actually is - not what the DWP wish it to be.
The DWP define in their guidance what 'walk' 'plan' 'journey' mean.
The law does not.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/377/schedule/1/part/1

This is the 'interpretation' section - what the words mean.
It does not define 'journey', 'route', 'follow'.

Similarly, the legislation does not specify that descriptors are 'really asking' only about either mental or physical health.

Nowhere in the 'how to score' regulations is this specified (it is in ESA regulations which came out around the same time as PIP, so it clearly was not a foreign concept).

In some cases, courts have looked to debates in parliament, but this is only permissible to clarify the precise meaning.
Wholly reading in "by reason of mental health" into the descriptor, when that is not in the actual law passed by parliament, who have had the ability to amend this in subsequent legislation amending the PIP regulations (to add 'repeatably reliably and safely at a reasonable speed') is not permitted.

In the absence of such 'mental health/physical health' wordings - the issue is can you - for example - repeatedly, reliably, ... for over 50% of the days do the task, for whatever reason.

If you can't, you score points.

Please note - arguing about which descriptors you qualify under should be concentrated at first on descriptors you meet by the DWPs interpretation.

Arguing any other intepretation requires a lot of understanding of the law, and caselaw in question, and will likely require an appeal, possibly with professional representation.

AllSpent

I agree with your points, which move the claim into the realms of appeals and the law. I understand the law doesn't define some areas, but it is worth understanding how they are being interpreted by the health provider. It may make answering them a little easier.

The link you provided may be a better source of reference for those wishing to accurately address the questions, and these are more-or-less mirrored in the DWP assessment guide. They certainly help in completing these forms. It seems though that there still remains a lot of confusion surrounding the answering of these questions/descriptors.