Less than 20 meter context

thebigcheese

Post Deleted.

pmlindyloo

thebigcheese wrote: »

I Must be mistaken! With all the uncertainty and with the pip migration still yet to complete, does anyone think the goverment will be forced to revisit the criteria and improve it and or open up the motabillity scheme to lower scorers claimants and have them pay a contribution for a car?

The motability scheme have already put some transitional support into place for those who lose their entitlement.

http://www.motability.co.uk/understanding-the-scheme/pip-and-motability/q-and-a-transitional-support-package

TELLIT01

thebigcheese wrote: »

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

As with any organisation such as CAB you will find some offices more clued up than others and some staff also more clued up than others. From my experience the quality of information varies greatly, from being very accurate to being quite simply totally wrong. I actually received a letter from one CAB office saying that they knew the person didn't actually have an entitlement but they were in financial difficulties so it would be nice if we would help her out. I wish we did have the autonomy to make a decision based on personal opinion - a lot more would get nothing !:D

rogerblack

thebigcheese wrote: »

I Must be mistaken! With all the uncertainty and with the pip migration still yet to complete, does anyone think the goverment will be forced to revisit the criteria and improve it and or open up the motabillity scheme to lower scorers claimants and have them pay a contribution for a car?

The much publicised reduction from higher figures to "20m"" from PIP in many cases is not as dramatic as it might seem. This was dramatic at the time - however later amending regulations were brought in to add 'repeatably, reliably, to an acceptable standard and safely'.

DLA caselaw has found that someone able to walk'50 yards - albeit slowly, with a limp and taking a rest' is not entitled to DLA.

It is quite possible that this person, if examined properly for PIP would fail to on most days be able to reliably stand and walk 20m as and when needed, in under twice the time it takes for a normal person to walk the distance, and therefore be entitled to the higher mobility element.

'Taking a rest' entirely falls away from all of the descriptors - as normal people do not need rests to do the things in the descriptors, and if you take a rest, you fail on time.

Many of the DLA decisions have put the 'unable to walk' threshold at very, very low walking speeds - certainly much less than the one half normal that entitles you to PIP.

Quoting some caselaw

Other decisions have attempted to suggest a distance as a rule of thumb. Currently this distance is 50 yards (metres). CDLA/608/1994 suggested that "in the absence of any special indications from the other three factors (speed, time and manner)" the ability to walk 25 or 30 yards is insignificant whilst someone who can walk 80 or 100 yards is unlikely to pass the test. For distances in between the decision cites CM/379/1989 which suggests that people will fail the test if they walk 60 or 70 yards without discomfort.
CSDLA/252/1994 stated that if someone could walk even 50 yards - albeit slowly, with a limp and taking a rest - before the onset of severe discomfort they would not be virtually unable to walk. CDLA/14594/1996 is more generous. It places a duty on the tribunal to consider how long someone needs to stop and rest before continuing as well as the nature of the discomfort that led to her needing to stop in a case where a claimant could walk 100 yards but stopped once during that distance.
CDLA/11266/1995 stated that walking 50 yards in five minutes is too slow so the claimant would be virtually unable to walk. See also CDLA/4388/1999* (91/00) and CDLA/3875/01 (paragraph 10).

thebigcheese

Post Deleted.

rogerblack

thebigcheese wrote: »

Is there a lot of scaremongering? It seems so but don't want to be naïve.

Personally I've had my ailments for a life time. They won't ever get better.

A lot of people formed opinions at the time of the much publicised announcement of the descriptors, and the 'reduction'.
They did not realise the significant change made by the later amendments. It is reasonable to point out that one intent of PIP was to spend less - and this has been achieved.


Just because your ailments do not change, either your adaption to them, or the legislation changing can change your benefit entitlement.

Someone who loses a limb may be substantially less disabled after 2 years once they've worked out suitable aids, and learned to cope. And then less so after 25 years, when they are no longer fit enough to cope with the aids, and the strategies that worked now don't.

Tally-Ho_2

thebigcheese wrote: »

I Must be mistaken! With all the uncertainty and with the pip migration still yet to complete, does anyone think the goverment will be forced to revisit the criteria and improve it and or open up the motabillity scheme to lower scorers claimants and have them pay a contribution for a car?

As has been mentioned above, Motability has put in place a £2000/£1000 (depending when you joined Motability) transition support package for those who on assessment drop from High Rate Mobility DLA to PIP Standard Mobility.

Looking as to whether Motability would have been able to continue to lease vehicles to those receiving Standard Rate PIP Mobility, then the figures don't really stack up.

For example, a car currently with a Nil Advance Payment and utilising the Total Allowance of DLAHRM/ERMPIP (£57.45) means that over a 3 year period (52 payments per year x 3 years) it costs the lessee £8962.20.

Taking the standard PIP Mobility payment of £21.80 and using the same calculation as a basis gives only a total of £3400.80 that the lesseee has available to pay for the car..

Thus the difference (£8962.20 - £3400.80) which would be needed as the 'Advance Payment' would be a whopping £5561.14.

(It would in reality be even higher as expected future increases in benefit in years 2 and 3 are factored in to the DLA 'Total Allowance' figure and the compounded percentage rise on £57.45 would be much higher than the compounded percentage rise on £21.80)!!

Even taking the absolute cheapest car currently on the Motability scheme (the Skoda Citygo 1.0 3 door) for DLA HRM/ PIP ERM recipients it is Nil deposit and fixed monthly payments of £45.75 giving a total payable of £7137.00 over the three year lease period.

However for someone only receiving Standard PIP at £21.80 per week, using the same calculation of £21.80 x 52 (weeks) x 3 (years) = £3400.07.

Therefore £7137.00 - £3400.07 = £3736.93 which would be required as an 'advance payment'.

With Advance Payments as high as this, almost all Manufacturer Personal Contract Plans would work out cheaper in the long run albeit one must add ones own funds to the ongoing cost. Even a fairly decent 'pre owned' car can be bought cheaper particularly if one uses the £2,000 'Transitional Support' as a deposit/down payment and obtains a cheap loan or cheap HP etc.

TH

thebigcheese

Post Deleted.

rogerblack

It's been pointed out that earlier in the thread I made an error.
Specifically - PIP does not test use of a wheelchair in the mobilisation tests, as I mentioned.
I may have been thinking of some of the earlier commentary around the 'stand and then move' phraseology and the wording of the 8 point descriptor saying 'unaided'.

But you need to stand, and then move - while still upright and not transferring into a chair.

If you cannot 'stand and then move' - without a chair, but possibly with the aid of appliances, then you qualify for 12 points.

Even if you can compete in wheelchair marathons.

BenJMin

The guidance notes in the PIP Assesment Guide state:
“Stand and then move” requires an individual to stand and then move
independently while remaining standing. It does not include a claimant who stands
and then transfers into a wheelchair or similar device. Individuals who require a
wheelchair or similar device to move a distance should not be considered able to
stand and move that distance."

Given your example above of someone using aids to move 30m and then a wheelchair to move 200m the applicant should be scored as meeting the following criteria.

d. Can stand and then move using an aid or appliance more than 20 metres but no more than 50 metres.