PIP Mental Health Law Change Help

Prinzessilein

Alice...could you offer thoughts on my situation?

I transitioned from DLA (Lower Rate both components) to PiP (Enhanced Care, Standard Mobility) in July 2017.

For Mobility I scored 4 points for each descriptor.....so 4 points for actual mobility, and 4 for planning a journey.

The descriptors at that time stated 'for reasons other than psychological distress' and so I only had 4 points for needing 'prompting' when planning a journey (descriptor 1b)......and because these were the descriptors I did not challenge the decision.

However, under these new guidelines I would score higher..1c...and 1d would both apply....so I would get 8 or 10 points...added to my 4 points for descriptor 2b this would place me at 12 or 14 points...so entitle me to the enhanced rate.

Do you think I would have a case for asking them to reassess this - even after about 6 months?

Alice_Holt

Prinzessilein,

If these Mobility descriptors would have applied when you transitioned:
c. Cannot plan the route of a journey. 8 points; or
d. Cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid. 10 points; or
f. Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid. 12 points.
And you can show why these descriptors should have been awarded rather than the prompting descriptor, then I would think you have a case.
The fact that you were awarded Enhanced Care may help, as this could be consistent with 1c,d, or f.

But, as it's very early days, it may be worth delaying a detailed request until MIND / Rethink issue their advice on how best to proceed, and the process the DWP intend to follow becomes clearer.
You may also want to check that the usual caveat that the DWP will re-look at the whole award, will not apply here.

I wouldn't worry about the fact that it's over 6 months. The DWP should be assessing all claims since March '17. I wonder whether it would be worth a brief letter just asking them to confirm that your case will be included in the review?

Penguin90

Can anyone contradict what w06 said? It would make me feel a lot less anxious.

ANNOYED1

does this mean any awards from now on will take the mental health factor in consideration for planning journeys?
So if you can't travel due to mental health they will give you points now when they didnt before?

System

ANNOYED1 wrote: »

does this mean any awards from now on will take the mental health factor in consideration for planning journeys?
So if you can't travel due to mental health they will give you points now when they didnt before?

If you can't travel at all you probably have a chance

Im lucky in that i can make familiar journeys (though still frequently have panic attacks) so i wouldn't score anything but under the new rules those who can;t make jorneys due to mental distress should score points where they previously haven;t been awarded.

Penguin90

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.

I have sent them a letter, but I'm still confused by the date issue. As I say, I received PIP in June 2016 (appeal ongoing), the more I read the more concerned I am that this High Court ruling won't affect me even though I cannot go outside without support for MH reasons.

ANNOYED1

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

If you can't travel at all you probably have a chance

Im lucky in that i can make familiar journeys (though still frequently have panic attacks) so i wouldn't score anything but under the new rules those who can;t make jorneys due to mental distress should score points where they previously haven;t been awarded.

surely you would score points on the unfamiliar part of the journey planning? and maybe familiar places if you have panic attacks?

Muttleythefrog

The DWP reported to be now going to look at reviewing all claims in light of the descriptors change debacle and not proceeding with appealing. I wonder if this is because as I would assert... the DWP and HCPs seemed to be interpreting the descriptors as per the changes before they were ever considered or made. Or perhaps more likely as per Alice's now rather prophetic looking post #21. Not sure how all this affects the Op.

Penguin90

Penitent wrote: »

Penguin - Sorry, I haven't read back, but IIRC you were awarded the 10 points because you haven't been able to leave your house at all in years. Did you argue/give evidence that you could leave the house to go to familiar places if you had an aid/someone helping you? If not, this might be why you were awarded the 10 points even though the 12 points were an option back then.

Part of my treatment involves going outside (just to the garden and back so far), but I can't even do that without someone with me which is why I feel I should have got 12 points- and I did make that clear in my application. For some reason PIP treats descriptors E and F as mutually exclusive, but in reality they aren't - they both apply to me.

Penguin90

Penitent wrote: »

I don't think most people would consider going into their garden making a journey.

It's not that they treat the descriptors as mutually exclusive, it's just that they can only award points for one of them and they're supposed to go with the one that best fits. In your case, given what you've described, it sounds like E is the better fit, as you aren't able to make any journeys even with help if you're only making it into your garden. Did you get a copy of the assessor's report? They should have explained why they chose that descriptor.

In my case, I am in a weird middle ground between the two. I'm able to make journeys to a couple of familiar places with help, but I can't do it with any kind of reliability (and if you can't do something reliably, you can't do it for PIP purposes). Having said that, both assessors have decided that this only counts as needing to be prompted and I've had to appeal both times. They don't seem to follow their own guidelines.

I would - it is the first step to going anywhere. My doctor, MH nurse and occupational therapist agree. E is not a better fit, it does not reflect the fact that I cannot go outside alone.