Less than 20 meter context

thebigcheese

Post Deleted.

rogerblack

thebigcheese wrote: »

Have CP. Use a wheelchair most places out doors.
Walking is very impaired due to pain and gait.
I fall over lots. Never know when. This happens in doors as well.

Tripping hazards like wires I don't often see.

I need assistance using stairs.

I'd say in any case from walking even a meter any of these things listed can happen, and they do occur at least 3 quarters of the week.

There's no minimum distance before this happens.

Would this be good enough to justify enhanced rate mobillity?

Would this be virtually unable to walk like DLA?

'Virtually unable to walk' - and its associated caselaw is not a term used in PIP.
As you mention - in order to be able to do something:
Repeatable, reliably, safely, no more than twice the time than a normal person, and manage this most days in order to not meet a descriptor.

Stairs are not part of the descriptor, and it would seem unreasonable to read them in.
'20m of stairs' is a much, much tougher test.

'normal' trip hazards in the everyday environment may be relevant.

Does it take you more than twice the time a normal person takes to stand, and then walk 20m?
Can you do this as often as reasonably needed in life?
Safely?
Reliably - to an acceptable standard?

Pain in and of itself is not mentioned in the regulations.
If however you have to stop, then this goes to reliability, safely, speed, ...

thebigcheese

Post Deleted.

rogerblack

thebigcheese wrote: »

How is 'acceptable standard' defined? where does the wheelchair fit in? If I use it then it means I'm unable to walk for that aspect of the day.

The wheelchair is a reasonable alternative to walking for longer distances under the regulations.
If, for example, you can walk only 30m with the caveats above - but you can use a wheelchair without issue, then you can be assessed as getting 0 points because you can mobilise in the wheelchair.

Many of these terms are not defined to a useful detail.

“(2A) Where C’s ability to carry out an activity is assessed, C is to be assessed as satisfying a descriptor only if C can do so—

(a)safely;

(b)to an acceptable standard;

(c)repeatedly; and

(d)within a reasonable time period.”; and

(b)after paragraph (3) insert the following paragraph—

“(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;

(b)“repeatedly” means as often as the activity being assessed is reasonably required to be completed; and

(c)“reasonable time period” means no more than twice as long as the maximum period that a person without a physical or mental condition which limits that person’s ability to carry out the activity in question would normally take to complete that activity.”

As you can see, 'acceptable standard' is not defined.

In the absence of a definition, the phrase takes its ordinary english meaning.

It's not reasonable to go to the ultimate extreme - you can only walk if you can walk regularly and in precise time at a quality sufficient for a military drill team.

Nor is it reasonable to go to the other - you can only not walk acceptably if you fail to place one leg in front of the other more than 50% of steps.

But in between is a large space that decisionmakers, and tribunals - having taken into account all the evidence - can come to a conclusion on if you are doing an activity to 'an acceptable standard'.

thebigcheese

Post Deleted.

pmlindyloo

rogerblack wrote: »

The wheelchair is a reasonable alternative to walking for longer distances under the regulations.
If, for example, you can walk only 30m with the caveats above - but you can use a wheelchair without issue, then you can be assessed as getting 0 points because you can mobilise in the wheelchair.

Many of these terms are not defined to a useful detail.



As you can see, 'acceptable standard' is not defined.

In the absence of a definition, the phrase takes its ordinary english meaning.

It's not reasonable to go to the ultimate extreme - you can only walk if you can walk regularly and in precise time at a quality sufficient for a military drill team.

Nor is it reasonable to go to the other - you can only not walk acceptably if you fail to place one leg in front of the other more than 50% of steps.

But in between is a large space that decisionmakers, and tribunals - having taken into account all the evidence - can come to a conclusion on if you are doing an activity to 'an acceptable standard'.

With all due respect I have to disagree with you on the part about only scoring 0 points if you use a wheelchair.

The 0 points would be awarded if you can stand and then move the distance. Standing and transferring to a wheel chair does not meet this descriptor.

I know you dislike me giving this link and I know it is only a guide but the 'professionals' do use these guidelines as part of their claims process so I will once again give it for the OP!

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

Read page 119 onwards

I always advocate people getting specialised help to complete a PIP form in these circumstances. CAB (you need one with a benefits specialist) or DIAL or a council welfare advisor or AgeUK if you meet the age criteria.

thebigcheese

Post Deleted.

rogerblack

pmlindyloo wrote: »

With all due respect I have to disagree with you on the part about only scoring 0 points if you use a wheelchair.

That is not what I was trying to say.
(below point is incorrect - see last entry in thread.)
I was saying that if someone could - with aids - walk 30m, and also use a wheelchair to go over 200m, they would score 0 points.



I do not disagree that the assessment guide is useful.
It has to be remembered that DWP procedure is not the law.

pmlindyloo

thebigcheese wrote: »

Are they all clued up on pip and all the nitty gritty stuff?

Your Southend CAB has a welfare and benefits specialist

https://citizensadvice.citizensadvice.org.uk/bureau_detail.htm?serialnumber=100283

but any of the others should be clued up.

However, services do vary from area to area so there is no guarantee. If you read some of the threads on here you will see that people regularly 'diss' some/all of these services.

thebigcheese

Post Deleted.

rogerblack

thebigcheese wrote: »

Rogerblack odd question but did you ever hang around on AOL chat rooms back in the day. The name rings a bell.

I did not.
I have only ever used this username here.