PiP refused

akkers

I suffer from acute attacks of Gout every 2 weeks. The attacks last 5-6 days each time when I am incapcitated and need help from my partner to do anything.

I made a PiP claim and they turned it down saying that I dont suffer majority of the time. They have not defined what the majority of time means.

Further, people who suffer only part-time can they not get PiP?

calcotti

akkers said: They have not defined what the majority of time means.

It means exactly what it says. If you are affected by your gout for 5 to 6 days but then have 7 to 8 days without symptoms then you are not affected the majority of the time.

akkers said: Further, people who suffer only part-time can they not get PiP?

If they are affected for less than half the days in a year then no they are not entitled.

Spoonie_Turtle

Majority of the time means more than 50%, or 'more than half the days'.  (Edit: here https://pipinfo.net/issues/fluctuating-conditions)  
Do your gout attacks have lingering effects or are you generally fine in between those 5-6 days?

poppy12345

akkers said:

I suffer from acute attacks of Gout every 2 weeks. The attacks last 5-6 days each time when I am incapcitated and need

I wouldn't say that is the majority of the time.

Alice_Holt

akkers said:

I suffer from acute attacks of Gout every 2 weeks. The attacks last 5-6 days each time when I am incapacitated...

       What happens on the other 8 days?   Does the gout cause any problems on those days?   
       Do you have any other conditions, or generalised arthritis?   
       Do you need aids to showers, dress, get on / off the toilet, sit when preparing food, etc on the other 8 days?

       Could you be at risk of harm during an acute attack, and if so - how great the harm?
      https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2017/april/risk-harm-need-not-be-‘more-likely-not’-when-assessing-pip
      "a panel of Upper Tribunal Judges - in CPIP/1599/2016 - has decisively ruled against the DWP’s ‘50% rule’.
The Judges hold that a decision maker should look at whether there is a real possibility that harm might occur and also at how great the harm might be."    

calcotti

Alice_Holt said: Could you be at risk of harm during an acute attack, and if so - how great the harm?

      https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2017/april/risk-harm-need-not-be-‘more-likely-not’-when-assessing-pip
      "a panel of Upper Tribunal Judges - in CPIP/1599/2016 - has decisively ruled against the DWP’s ‘50% rule’.
The Judges hold that a decision maker should look at whether there is a real possibility that harm might occur and also at how great the harm might be."    

Isn’t that going to depend on whether the attacks are sudden with no advance warning.

Alice_Holt

calcotti said:

Alice_Holt said: Could you be at risk of harm during an acute attack, and if so - how great the harm?

      https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2017/april/risk-harm-need-not-be-‘more-likely-not’-when-assessing-pip
      "a panel of Upper Tribunal Judges - in CPIP/1599/2016 - has decisively ruled against the DWP’s ‘50% rule’.
The Judges hold that a decision maker should look at whether there is a real possibility that harm might occur and also at how great the harm might be."    

Isn’t that going to depend on whether the attacks are sudden with no advance warning.

     When writing a PIP form where the claimant suffers from occasional episodes of epilepsy, this would be critical. 

    However, the ruling can be applied to other conditions, and as the OP uses the word "incapacitated" it would be well worth exploring  to see if this approach could help the OP overcome the 50% rule.
  Particularly as the OP is not far short of 50% (c.42% of the time), then looking at potential risks and harm could possibly be beneficial for a positive PIP outcome.

  I would anticipate, though, that (if risk / harm was indeed applicable to the OP) the judgement would go to tribunal, after rejection by the DWP.    

      

peteuk

They will take into account the things you can do when you have gout as well as what your doing overall.   
Do you drive? Do you work?  

They will look at how the gout effects you.  If it doesn't effect you, as others have said on more than 50% of days then you wont get the payment.

akkers

I find it a bit unfair that someone who suffers in the extremes for 42% of the time is not eligible. Why dont they give a pro-rata reduced payment based on % of the time a person is suffering.

tomtom256

The rules and eligiblity criteria are there, they have to have a cut off at some point. What if somebody is afected 25% or 5% of the time.
How would it be administered?