PIP Mental Health Law Change Help

Penguin90

deannatrois wrote: »

Apparently there is also a legal challenge due to appear in court on 12th December

Can someone confirm, assuming the judgement is upheld in the Court of Appeal, does this mean I will be bumped up to 12 points in the Planning and following a journey section (I currently have 10 points)?

http://www.publiclawproject.org.uk/news/95/high-court-finds-2017-personal-independence-payment-pip-regulations-unlawful

wellynever

As of yesterday the Gov. are not going to appeal.

unable to put a link in, but it's on the net just google it.

Prinzessilein

I heard this news yesterday...waiting to see what will happen...could make a big difference to me!

[Deleted User]

Me too. I travel very little because of stress (have ASD). Forced to make a journey last week, took me well over 3 hours instead of 1 hour 20 mins and I ended up miles away because I took the wrong train. I won't travel on more than one bus at all. People must have thought they had a nutter on the loose (sorry if that's rude but its how I feel) because I got so stressed and was expressing it out loud lolol. That was just when I got lost on the starting platform lol. It continued the whole journey.

I am not sure how this affects my PIP application though (which is now in and received by them)?

Alice_Holt

It will be interesting to see how the DWP approaches this:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018-01-19/HCWS414/
"The Department for Work and Pensions will now undertake an exercise to go through all affected cases in receipt of PIP and all decisions made following this judgement to identify anyone who may be entitled to more as a result of the judgement. We will then write to those individuals affected, and all payments will be backdated to the effective date in each individual claim."

If you were getting a Mobility award before March 16, and had that award removed / reduced due to the "For reasons other than psychological distress" amendment in the regulations, then I guess:
1) Raise this with your MP to intervene with the DWP; or
2) Ask for an any-time revision on grounds of official error; or
3) If reassessed and awarded a higher Mob award due to psychological distress, then request the DWP to look again at your previous award in light of this judgement.

The DWP will have a huge task on their hands in identifying "all affected cases". As a colleague noted - if they have failed to apply the mobility component correctly how can they identify, and re-do an assessment and decision on just the "affected" cases - they'll have to go through the lot!
My (rather cynical) thoughts are that the process will be limited due to lack of staff/ cost concerns and that many potential claimants will be missed unless they themselves raise the issue.

We will have to see how the DWP propose to handle this process.
It will be interesting to see what charities such as Mind, and Rethink suggest.
It is especially unfortunate for those who have lost their motability vehicle as a result of this farrago.
I suspect it will also increase the work (and existing long waiting times) of the Tribunal Services, as a DWP decision not to increase a historic award would be (I assume) an appealable decision.

w06

If it was properly computerised it wouldn't take much to identify the subset of potential cases affected - those not awarded enhanced rate mobility, since the date of the change, with any points for mental health related descriptors - or search the free text for mental health words.

If the system was properly computerised ...

Penguin90

Alice_Holt wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how the DWP approaches this:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018-01-19/HCWS414/
"The Department for Work and Pensions will now undertake an exercise to go through all affected cases in receipt of PIP and all decisions made following this judgement to identify anyone who may be entitled to more as a result of the judgement. We will then write to those individuals affected, and all payments will be backdated to the effective date in each individual claim."

If you were getting a Mobility award before March 16, and had that award removed / reduced due to the "For reasons other than psychological distress" amendment in the regulations, then I guess:
1) Raise this with your MP to intervene with the DWP; or
2) Ask for an any-time revision on grounds of official error; or
3) If reassessed and awarded a higher Mob award due to psychological distress, then request the DWP to look again at your previous award in light of this judgement.

The DWP will have a huge task on their hands in identifying "all affected cases". As a colleague noted - if they have failed to apply the mobility component correctly how can they identify, and re-do an assessment and decision on just the "affected" cases - they'll have to go through the lot!
My (rather cynical) thoughts are that the process will be limited due to lack of staff/ cost concerns and that many potential claimants will be missed unless they themselves raise the issue.

We will have to see how the DWP propose to handle this process.
It will be interesting to see what charities such as Mind, and Rethink suggest.
It is especially unfortunate for those who have lost their motability vehicle as a result of this farrago.
I suspect it will also increase the work (and existing long waiting times) of the Tribunal Services, as a DWP decision not to increase a historic award would be (I assume) an appealable decision.

I was awarded the standard mobility rate in June 2016 (appeal ongoing), presumably the tribunal will recognise the high court ruling and award me the enhanced rate even though the mobility award was not the basis for my appeal (I was advised by Citizen's Advice to focus on Daily Living)?

This is all very confusing and stressful.

w06

Your claim should be unaffected then, the changes came in in 2017 and so won't have been used when assessing your claim

Alice_Holt

For those decision's post March 2017, I would hope that any tribunal would now consider mobility without the ""For reasons other than psychological distress" exception.
In those cases It may be worth putting in an additional submission along the lines of "I would ask the tribunal, following the High Court's decision on 21st December to reverse the UT decision re MH and the DWP decision to accept the High Court's ruling, to consider if the Mobility descriptor 1 c, d, or f applies" .

Of course, 12 points are needed for an Enhanced award. So, if you were awarded, say, 4 points for Moving around and 4 points for " Needs prompting to be able to undertake any journey to avoid overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant." - then look carefully and 1 c, d, and f to see if those apply.
It would be worth preparing examples, diary, etc which could be used at a tribunal to expand on why these descriptors should now be considered.

I'm sure the Tribunal Service will be issuing guidance to tribunal chairs on this matter.

Penguin90

w06 wrote: »

Your claim should be unaffected then, the changes came in in 2017 and so won't have been used when assessing your claim

But I was awarded 10 points for the "plan and follow a journey" activity because of psychological distress - and that was in 2016. I'm confused.

Alice_Holt wrote: »

For those decision's post March 2017, I would hope that any tribunal would now consider mobility without the ""For reasons other than psychological distress" exception.
In those cases It may be worth putting in an additional submission along the lines of "I would ask the tribunal, following the High Court's decision on 21st December to reverse the UT decision re MH and the DWP decision to accept the High Court's ruling, to consider if the Mobility descriptor 1 c, d, or f applies" .

Of course, 12 points are needed for an Enhanced award. So, if you were awarded, say, 4 points for Moving around and 4 points for " Needs prompting to be able to undertake any journey to avoid overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant." - then look carefully and 1 c, d, and f to see if those apply.
It would be worth preparing examples, diary, etc which could be used at a tribunal to expand on why these descriptors should now be considered.

I'm sure the Tribunal Service will be issuing guidance to tribunal chairs on this matter.

As above, I got 10 points for descriptor E in "plan and follow a journey". I don't understand why the date when I received PIP matters if the circumstances are the same as later claimants.

I will send a submission like you suggest, it can't hurt, thanks!