PIP Mobility Criteria - Court of Appeal

Derwent

I note that the Court of Appeal is today hearing the challenge to the 20m criteria for PIP enhanced mobility awards. It'll be interesting to see what their Lordships findings are on this case and if they decide the SoS acted lawfully in reducing it from the previous 50m DLA threshold.

nobby1963

So who would challenge if he reduced the distance from 50 to 20 meters ??

Is it some other government department ?

Nobby.

Derwent

nobby1963 wrote: »

So who would challenge if he reduced the distance from 50 to 20 meters ??

Is it some other government department ?

Nobby.

It is being challenged by Irwin Mitchell lawyers on behalf of an existing DLA claimant who is arguing that the reduction from 50m to 20m will lead to thousands of people being downgraded from high rate mobility on DLA to standard rate on PIP despite their condition not having got any better.

colin13

disabled people will try and walk the 50m,,but for most a great struggle,,we think we are ealhier than we are,,,but those who r at it,,will just say cant do that,,so assecors are conned by the able to,,,and they will c the true disabled struggle,,but do it

rogerblack

In practice, as I've said before - the challenge was unquestionably right at the time.

However, later legislation clarified the meaning of the PIP descriptors to such a degree that it almost rewrote them.
The only way the clarification could have been more positive is if it explicitly mentioned pain.

'Are you on most days unable to stand and then walk 20m' is very, very different from the currently in force "Are you on most days unable to reliably, as often as reasonably required, safely and in no more than twice the normal persons time stand and then walk 20m".

I would argue that this is likely wider than the 50m test.

The speeds used for '50m' are _CONSIDERABLY_ under half normal pace, so in practice, many claimants who can walk 50m at a very slow pace qualify.
As do those that can't do it more than once, as do those that can't do it to an acceptable standard.

A 'win' on this basis is not going to be looked at purely on the legislation in force at the time, and a decision made on that.
Later changes are also going to be relevant on what's going to be required from now on.
This win - if a win is won - will almost certainly only effect people with outstanding appeals on this matter, and not simply change "20m" to "50m"

Derwent

All of that may be true but it is somewhat irrelevant to the proceedings in the Court of Appeal. You can only go the CoA on points of law and the appellant is arguing that the DWP consultation was unlawful in that subsequently leaked documents showed that the decisions had already been taken regardless of the consultation. The second consultation took place after the legislation had already been written and so couldn't have altered the outcome (i.e. the legislation was already in effect). The judge in the initial court hearing was very scathing of the DWP and although he reluctantly couldn't rule for the appellant he encouraged him to take it to the CoA for a definitive ruling.