MSE News: Government to review all 1.6 million...

poppy12345

paulo1888 wrote: »

Hi. would be grateful for any advice on this subject. A lot of disability advice websites report that

"If you started claiming PIP on or after 28 November 2016
If you claimed PIP on or after 28 November 2016 and you receive the standard mobility component or no mobility component at all the DWP will automatically review your claim.

You will not be required to attend a face-to-face assessment, but may be contacted by phone or post if they need further information about your claim.

If you already receive the enhanced mobility component of PIP, nothing will change as you are already claiming the highest component

If you started claiming PIP before 28 November 2016
If you started claiming PIP before 28 November 2016 the government will not be reviewing your case.

In addition If you don’t receive the mobility component or the standard rate you are entitled to make a new claim. You should be aware, however, that your PIP could go up or down based on the new assessment, so it is recommended you seek advice before starting this process."

I cannot see how they come to this conclusion as it is with odds with the DWP guidelines.

https://dwpexamination.org/forum/pip-dla-topics/dwp-mcvey-letter-on-implementing-pip-mental-health-judgement-faqs-for-claimants-and-mps-timescales-backdating-payments-and-more/

I interpret this as ONLY if your claim was disallowed 28 Nov 2016 then your claim will not be reviewed.
The DWP states "We will be identifying claimants that may now be eligible to more support under PIP. This will include anyone who was receiving PIP at 28th November 2016 and anyone who has received a decision since then."
It clearly states at 28 November, and not from 28 November
I would be grateful if anyone has any advice

This applies to following and planning a journey for mental health only. As stated it's for decisions made from 28th November 2016. If a decision was made before that date then it doesn't apply. If it does apply to you then you don't need to do anything as DWP will eventually contact everyone that it applies to.

poppy12345

paulo1888 wrote: »

Hi Poppy, many thanks for your reply, much appreciated.

I'm still confused by this. For example if someone has been receiving PIP at the Lower Mobility rate continuously from say January 2015 and is still receiving it now, how does this fit in with the DWP advice below.

What if I was disallowed PIP before or after the judgment? Will this affect me?

Anyone who was disallowed PIP before 28th November 2016 and has overwhelming psychological distress that they think affects their ability to plan and follow a journey should consider making a new claim.

If you were disallowed PIP on or after 28th November 2016, the Department will consider whether you are entitled to an award as a result of this judgment and will write to you if you are identified as affected.

Will affected claimants receive backdated payments?

Yes. We will be identifying claimants that may now be eligible to more support under PIP. This will include anyone who was receiving PIP at 28th November 2016 and anyone who has received a decision since then.

Note "at 28 Nov, not since 28 Nov"

1/ If a decision was made in 2015 then the new rules do NOT apply.

2/ If a decision was made from 28th November 2016 then the new rules MAY apply.

3/ Reporting a change of circumstances is always risky because you could lose everything you already have.
4/ All those affected will eventually be contacted but this could take years, if money is owed it will be backdated.

Prinzessilein

I definitely fall into the group that should have their claim reviewed...I also believe that I should have my mobility award increased to 'Enhanced' under the reinstated guidelines.


I would just appreciate it if the DWP could give some sort of timescale...how long do I have to wait?...If they decide that the Mobility award I was given ('standard' ) was correct, then will they send me a letter telling me - or will they simply just let things stand (in which case how will I know that they even bothered to review my case?)


Like everything with the DWP this has been dreadfully organized.....(and it should never had been necessary in the first place had they not tried to be 'clever' and rewrite the rules!0

Alice_Holt

Prinzessilein wrote: »

Like everything with the DWP this has been dreadfully organized.....(and it should never had been necessary in the first place had they not tried to be 'clever' and rewrite the rules)!

Completely agree.

To amend the planning and following a journey descriptors to "For reasons other than psychological distress..." was as silly as including the direction "For claimants other than redheads...... "

Blatant discrimination against those with poor mental health, included solely in order to reduce PIP payments / achieve departmental budget reductions.

Now expensively backfired. I wonder how much taxpayers money was wasted in fruitless legal costs.

poppy12345

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/personal-independence-payment-changes/overwhelming-psychological-distress-and-journeys-changes-to-pip-law-from-28-november-2016

poppy12345

The PIP descriptors were changed in 2016 i believe and overwhelming psychological distress was added. If a claimant was awarded in 2015 then i highly doubt the rules will apply to them. If the descriptor applied at the time then they would have been awarded the points.

poppy12345

paulo1888 wrote: »

Thanks Poppy, perhaps I am reading too much into this but from the link you sent me it states

"We are looking at all current PIP claims to check if this change means you may be eligible for more support under PIP.

We are also looking again at claims we decided on or after 28 November 2016 where we did not award PIP."

So an award from January 2015 surely falls into the definition of current claims

Many Thanks

I disagree because the PIP descriptor wasn't changed until 2016. Like i said if the descriptor applied then, you would have been awarded it at that time. You also could have gone down the MR then Tribunal route, did you do that?

poppy12345

This is taken from CPAG and states what i said is correct.

‘We will be going through all cases in receipt of PIP and all decisions made since the judgment in MH to identify anyone who may be entitled to more as a result of the judgment…The effective date will be either the date of the claim or the date of the MH judgment (November 2016), whichever is the later date. Claimants do not need to write to DWP in order to receive the correct award.’
Taken from this link.
http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/pip-and-psychological-distress

Alice_Holt

paulo1888 wrote: »

Thanks Poppy, perhaps I am reading too much into this but from the link you sent me it states

"We are looking at all current PIP claims to check if this change means you may be eligible for more support under PIP.

We are also looking again at claims we decided on or after 28 November 2016 where we did not award PIP."

So an award from January 2015 surely falls into the definition of current claims

Many Thanks

I would agree with poppy.

The descriptor originally was:
"Cannot follow the route of an (un)familiar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid."

In its infinitive wisdom the DWP changed this in 2016 to:
"For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot follow the route of an (un)familiar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid."
(In order to further reduce welfare payments!)

This discriminatory amendment was eventually ruled illegal by the courts.

It is now back to:
"Cannot follow the route of an (un)familiar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid."

The cases under review are those assessed during the period when the descriptor was illegally changed to:
"For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot follow the route of an (un)familiar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid."

In 2015 your case would (I'm fairly sure) have been assessed under:
"Cannot follow the route of an (un)familiar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid."
So, restrictions due to mental health and psychological distress would have been taken into account in your assessment.

Is that any clearer?
You need to look at the wider context to understand this, rather than getting caught up in the semantics of DWP press releases.

As poppy says if you disagreed with the decision you could have appealed it at the time.

My reading of current, would not include 2015.
If you are still unconvinced - try asking the S of S for DWP to clarify the usage and meaning of current in their statement.

poppy12345

paulo1888 wrote: »

OK, I'm still not convinced, I'm back again for more

The original descriptors:

c. Cannot plan the route of a journey;

d. Cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey withoutanother person, assistance dog or orientation aid;

e. Cannot undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress; and

f. Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid.

These descriptors respectively scored eight, 10, 10 and 12 points.

Resolving a dispute in the caselaw, Upper Tribunal judges Rowland, Rowley and Hemingway held in MH,2 dated 28 November 2016, that descriptors ‘c’, ‘d’ and ‘f’ could be satisfied by claimants by virtue of ‘overwhelming psychological distress’.

Unhappy with this interpretation, the government amended the PIP regulations from 16 March 2017, replacing the word ‘cannot’ in descriptors ‘c’, ‘d’ and ‘f’ with the phrase: ‘For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot’.3

In December 2017, the high court ruled that these changes were unfair and have said the rules need to be changed back.

So 2016 was the test case in which the judge says that the descriptors ‘c’, ‘d’ and ‘f’ could be satisfied by claimants by virtue of ‘overwhelming psychological distress’.[/B]

But you were awarded in 2015.....and you failed to be awarded the points at that time, which was in fact before they changed the PIP descriptors the first time.

If you thought you should have been awarded the points at that time then why didn't you ask for the MR, then Tribunal?