New PIP Rules

[Deleted User]

http://www.cafamily.org.uk/news-and-media/government-announces-surprise-change-to-pip-entitlement-rules/


Yesterday the government made a surprise announcement that it is changing the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) rules. The change will mean that fewer people will be able to get this benefit.

The new rules they are introducing will:

Make it harder for people with mental health problems to qualify for the mobility component.
Make it harder for people to qualify for PIP who don't get therapy but who instead need help to both manage their medication and monitor their health condition.
The government has decided to act following two recent Upper Tribunal decisions.

In decision [2016] UKUT 531 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal said that entitlement to PIP mobility on the basis of being unable to follow a journey was not restricted to those with learning difficulties or sensory impairments, but also covered those who had problems in reliably following a journey due to overwhelming psychological distress.

In [2016] UKUT 0530 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal found that where someone needed substantial help both to take medication and to monitor their condition, this should be considered as support to 'manage therapy' allowing them to get more points under the PIP rules.

The changes to the PIP rules that the government are introducing will effectively reverse both of these Upper Tribunal decisions.

The new regulations will come into force on the 16th March. The government says that the changes will only apply to new awards after that date and will not lead to any existing awards being reduced.

Alice_Holt

See also - http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/3602-government-rushes-in-heartless-changes-to-pip-mobility-for-mental-health

"From 16 March the law will be changed so that the words “For reasons other than psychological distress” will be added to the start of descriptors c, d and f in relation to “Planning and following journeys”.

CTcelt1988

Here's the troll with the dodgy surname.

rockingbilly

Savile wrote: »

Great news, The rules should be a lot tighter.

The rules that have always existed will still remain the same. The difference is that once again the court system has started to push the boundaries beyond what PIP was set up to do in the first place. This is what happened with DLA .
The government are simply changing the laws to stop this abuse of power created by the judiciary from happening - for that I congratulate the government.

Reason? Because of these judgments and if the government didn't do something about them you will have decisions made over the past 4 years based on one set of criteria, and new decisions, on exactly the same facts, on a different set of criteria - that is unfair on those that had decisions made before this month.

CTcelt1988

Your such a hypocrite Rockingbilly. You mouth off about PIP being for people in need of it, yet you want it even though you won't use it for your benefit.

Prudent

It does seem an unfair exclusion as psychological distress can be as severe and disabling as any other form of disability/illness which prevents you making a journey alone.

Does this ruling exclude anyone with a mental health issue from receiving the mobility element of PIP? For example if someone cannot reliably plan/follow a journey due to psychosis or disassociation?

rockingbilly

CTcelt1988 wrote: »

Your such a hypocrite Rockingbilly. You mouth off about PIP being for people in need of it, yet you want it even though you won't use it for your benefit.

Please get your facts straight.
I have no intention of reiterating what I have previously said, to do so would derail this thread.
PIP is NOT for people in need, it is for people that have established that they fit into various descriptors and have attained enough points. They may or may not have any additional needs arising out of their disabilities - that is NOT part of the PIP regulations.
Even two ex Prime Ministers claimed DLA for their children - they certainly didn't want or need the extra money!

rockingbilly

Prudent wrote: »

It does seem an unfair exclusion as psychological distress can be as severe and disabling as any other form of disability

You may well be right.
But for the past 4 years the rules have been that it is excluded. Decisions have been made on this basis. You can't very well have the courts change the goalposts after four years and start to award Mobility to those lucky ones that apply for PIP from this month onwards. What about the fairness to those that didn't get an award over the past 4 years?

The government have done the right thing and stopped this immediately. All that is happening is making the judgements nil and void so that we are all back to where we were in 2013 with no changes.

CTcelt1988

Stop the preaching Rockingbilly. We know your a charlatan who's using one of your many user names just to troll this thread. Your advise is complete nonsense and you've contradicted yourself many times.

FBaby

Penitent wrote: »

I really don't get this. In functional terms, what's the difference between someone who needs someone to go with them to go on a journey because they :

a) are partially-sighted,
b) have a learning disability,
c) are agoraphobic?

They all need the same support to do the same thing, but c) gets 4 pts for needing to be "prompted" and a) and b) get 10-12 points?

a) and b) are very unlikely to ever be in a position to get better, c) is. The government believes that too many of the c) accept that their disability is permanent and expect benefit to support them indefinitely, hence the changes.

wellynever

Luckily it won't affect me, but shame it's going to affect other people with MH problems.