Claiming PIP via RelayUK

[Deleted User]

@poppy12345

Q14 (Mobility) is worded differently - it is now set up for people who use wheelchairs and allows me to put the walking distance down as less than 20m unassisted for 12 points. Q14b now actually says "If you use a wheelchair or Mobiiity Scooter - put down how far you can walk WITHOUT using it"

Which clearly is different to the last version and covers my case - and gain 12 points 

Spoonie_Turtle

Interesting.  This is the previous one https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/713118/pip2-how-your-disability-affects-you-form.pdf

And this is the new one
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/735754/response/1759704/attach/4/PIP2 form booklet PrintOnly 220121.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 (from an FOI request)

The previous one did have options for 'less than 20m' and specifically asked about whether you use aids or a wheelchair.  The new one makes me think we have to be very clear with the 'headline' facts so they can't somehow manage to overlook the use of aids or wheelchair etc.

Obviously the law and descriptors haven't changed, just the wording DWP use to gather the information.

Muttleythefrog

Deleted_User said:

@poppy12345

Q14 (Mobility) is worded differently - it is now set up for people who use wheelchairs and allows me to put the walking distance down as less than 20m unassisted for 12 points. Q14b now actually says "If you use a wheelchair or Mobiiity Scooter - put down how far you can walk WITHOUT using it"

Which clearly is different to the last version and covers my case - and gain 12 points 

Important to state the form/questions doesn't/don't necessarily translate as the same as the descriptors which as Spoonie points out haven't changed even though the form periodically does. There's no guarantee that the answers on the form translate into the relevant award during the process either because of human assessment/opinion failings in it or because of other factors like multiple descriptors applying - personal example is that for Mob 1 the DWP do not contest that I (theoretically) meet criteria for descriptor f (12 points) but they award descriptor e (10 points) on the basis that for the majority of the time I cannot get out due to psychological distress (which is true). 

The form is for information capture so ensure you describe your difficulties in the relevant section after the headline questions including surrounding the use of aids or lack of in your case and why etc.

Alice_Holt

Muttleythefrog said:

Deleted_User said:

@poppy12345

Q14 (Mobility) is worded differently - it is now set up for people who use wheelchairs and allows me to put the walking distance down as less than 20m unassisted for 12 points. Q14b now actually says "If you use a wheelchair or Mobiiity Scooter - put down how far you can walk WITHOUT using it"

Which clearly is different to the last version and covers my case - and gain 12 points 

Important to state the form/questions doesn't/don't necessarily translate as the same as the descriptors which as Spoonie points out haven't changed even though the form periodically does. There's no guarantee that the answers on the form translate into the relevant award during the process either because of human assessment/opinion failings in it or because of other factors like multiple descriptors applying - personal example is that for Mob 1 the DWP do not contest that I (theoretically) meet criteria for descriptor f (12 points) but they award descriptor e (10 points) on the basis that for the majority of the time I cannot get out due to psychological distress (which is true). 

The form is for information capture so ensure you describe your difficulties in the relevant section after the headline questions including surrounding the use of aids or lack of in your case and why etc.

     Indeed.

    The questions on both the PIP and WCA forms will be necessarily be an abbreviated version of the descriptors (and both you and Spoonie note the moving around PIP descriptor has not changed).
   It is sensible for a claimant to consider the descriptors, and not just rely on the wording of the questions / form.
The WCA questionnaire, for instance, does not include a section around the possibility of "risk to health" (ESA regs 28 & 35).   CPAG note "The failure of the DWP to illicit evidence relevant to whether these exceptions apply, must mean many cases are wrongly decided."
 
     I'm slightly bemused by the OP's post, as he (on another thread) was given info from the PIP assessment guide on the moving around PIP activity by poppy. This clearly refers to "stand and then move".
   Indeed the notes on page 119 (below) clarify that '“Stand and then move” requires an individual to stand and then move independently while remaining standing. It does not include a claimant who stands and then transfers into a wheelchair or similar device. Individuals who require a wheelchair or similar device to move a distance should not be considered able to stand and move that distance.'  

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/985358/pip-assessment-guide-part-2-assessment-criteria.pdf

[Deleted User]

Also 2.1.22 Aids and appliances do not include lens implants or joint replacements, but do include artificial limbs.

So.how do they expect someone with a FAILED replacement joint to walk and what exactly do they class a replacement joint as? 

Muttleythefrog

Deleted_User said:

Also 2.1.22 Aids and appliances do not include lens implants or joint replacements, but do include artificial limbs.

So.how do they expect someone with a FAILED replacement joint to walk and what exactly do they class a replacement joint as? 

Is this relevant to your circumstances? If not then I strongly suggest a re-focus. You've already asked for and got extension to complete your form (which suggests to me you think you might struggle to complete it in the time given) and I would say that completing that and gathering any supporting evidence should take precedence over the circumstances of other theoretical claimants and continued drifting away from meaningful understanding of the descriptors. You have been given information on how the descriptors are selected and if there is still misunderstanding then perhaps you need to approach someone you trust to take the same publicly available material and explain it to you in a way that perhaps people here are failing to do. 

They do not expect someone with a failed replacement joint to walk - they expect someone with difficulties standing and walking to describe accurately their disablement and difficulties so that a relevant descriptor can be explored... if those difficulties involve a joint replacement that has or has not been successful then they can detail that. All they are saying is that for the purposes of exploring disablement in relation to the descriptors they do not consider a joint replacement to be an aid or appliance... as compared to an artificial limb which they do. What do they classify as a replacement joint...or artificial limb... they're not going to detail to forensic level what every aspect of their terminology means and if there was ever circumstances where a case threw up a descriptor determining debate around that then it could be explored through the usual channels that could ultimately end up with upper tier tribunal ruling. 

Fill in your form... focus! After you've done that perhaps if you have that curiosity for deep exploration of the activities and how they are assessed you can turn to case law cases from upper tier tribunal judge rulings which look at those areas of contention and dispute when it comes to assessing what descriptors apply and what means what and what it is reasonable to think things mean. Such rulings can then impact how the benefit is assessed and you may have heard of situations where the DWP has had to trawl back through cases retrospectively because of changing interpretations.

[Deleted User]

Muttleythefrog said:

Deleted_User said:

Also 2.1.22 Aids and appliances do not include lens implants or joint replacements, but do include artificial limbs.

So.how do they expect someone with a FAILED replacement joint to walk and what exactly do they class a replacement joint as? 

Is this relevant to your circumstances? If not then I strongly suggest a re-focus. You've already asked for and got extension to complete your form (which suggests to me you think you might struggle to complete it in the time given) and I would say that completing that and gathering any supporting evidence should take precedence over the circumstances of other theoretical claimants and continued drifting away from meaningful understanding of the descriptors. You have been given information on how the descriptors are selected and if there is still misunderstanding then perhaps you need to approach someone you trust to take the same publicly available material and explain it to you in a way that perhaps people here are failing to do. 

They do not expect someone with a failed replacement joint to walk - they expect someone with difficulties standing and walking to describe accurately their disablement and difficulties so that a relevant descriptor can be explored... if those difficulties involve a joint replacement that has or has not been successful then they can detail that. All they are saying is that for the purposes of exploring disablement in relation to the descriptors they do not consider a joint replacement to be an aid or appliance... as compared to an artificial limb which they do. What do they classify as a replacement joint...or artificial limb... they're not going to detail to forensic level what every aspect of their terminology means and if there was ever circumstances where a case threw up a descriptor determining debate around that then it could be explored through the usual channels that could ultimately end up with upper tier tribunal ruling. 

Fill in your form... focus! After you've done that perhaps if you have that curiosity for deep exploration of the activities and how they are assessed you can turn to case law cases from upper tier tribunal judge rulings which look at those areas of contention and dispute when it comes to assessing what descriptors apply and what means what and what it is reasonable to think things mean. Such rulings can then impact how the benefit is assessed and you may have heard of situations where the DWP has had to trawl back through cases retrospectivel because of changing interpretations.

Yes it certainly is relevant to.my situation 
I had a replacement knee joint 5 years ago and it has not helped my.pain at all
The ligaments have restreched and are now causing me more pain than pre op 
They won't do any more on my knee since I am too young (58) in case it goes wrong 

Muttleythefrog

Deleted_User said:

Muttleythefrog said:

Deleted_User said:

Also 2.1.22 Aids and appliances do not include lens implants or joint replacements, but do include artificial limbs.

So.how do they expect someone with a FAILED replacement joint to walk and what exactly do they class a replacement joint as? 

Is this relevant to your circumstances? If not then I strongly suggest a re-focus. You've already asked for and got extension to complete your form (which suggests to me you think you might struggle to complete it in the time given) and I would say that completing that and gathering any supporting evidence should take precedence over the circumstances of other theoretical claimants and continued drifting away from meaningful understanding of the descriptors. You have been given information on how the descriptors are selected and if there is still misunderstanding then perhaps you need to approach someone you trust to take the same publicly available material and explain it to you in a way that perhaps people here are failing to do. 

They do not expect someone with a failed replacement joint to walk - they expect someone with difficulties standing and walking to describe accurately their disablement and difficulties so that a relevant descriptor can be explored... if those difficulties involve a joint replacement that has or has not been successful then they can detail that. All they are saying is that for the purposes of exploring disablement in relation to the descriptors they do not consider a joint replacement to be an aid or appliance... as compared to an artificial limb which they do. What do they classify as a replacement joint...or artificial limb... they're not going to detail to forensic level what every aspect of their terminology means and if there was ever circumstances where a case threw up a descriptor determining debate around that then it could be explored through the usual channels that could ultimately end up with upper tier tribunal ruling. 

Fill in your form... focus! After you've done that perhaps if you have that curiosity for deep exploration of the activities and how they are assessed you can turn to case law cases from upper tier tribunal judge rulings which look at those areas of contention and dispute when it comes to assessing what descriptors apply and what means what and what it is reasonable to think things mean. Such rulings can then impact how the benefit is assessed and you may have heard of situations where the DWP has had to trawl back through cases retrospectively because of changing interpretations.

Yes it certainly is relevant to.my situation 
I had a replacement knee joint 5 years ago and it has not helped my.pain at all
The ligaments have restreched and are now causing me more pain than pre op 

Then detail that on the form too particularly if attempts to stand and then walk cause you significant pain... also yes detail any prognosis since it may impact how durable they see the problem as (which could of course influence the length of award). Detail your difficulties in the text box allowing you to do so... include examples... include also if you use aids/appliances.. include description of how aids/appliances would or would not help you if relevant. You've been given exceptional advice and guidance (plus links to such) from reliable posters it seems since back in October at least on same issues. Their advice is becoming repetitive and now so is mine... and much as I hate to lack originality I cannot evade the repetition of the phrase we're going around in circles. Ultimately the more relevant information and evidence you can supply the greater the chances of accurate assessment and decision... there's also the element that better information reduces a bit the chances of requirements for assessment in person although being a new claim in particular you should still anticipate such very likely.

Regarding your comment to Alice... "So are you saying that when I truthfully tick the box on Q14)  I CAN WALK LESS THAN 20m  - It will be ignored ?" - I can in no way see how you interpret she had said this. Your information and answers on the form should all be considered but as with any claimant supplied information the DWP or those they seek opinion from are entitled to determine if the information is helpful or accurate (they reject lots of my information as unhelpful or irrelevant including for Mob 2!) and use it as appropriate for their purposes of assessing disablements and/or the claim. They're also entitled to explore getting further information (as they typically would in an assessment) to determine what descriptors they think most suitable. If you do face assessment then things like your answers to the questions (such as referred to in Q14) on the form will quite probably be the basis for the assessor's understanding of how you see your disability and asking questions surrounding that.

Focus...Form...less debate...lol

[Deleted User]

Thank you 
I can.cope with any questions as long as long as they don't expect a verbal response!,...
The reason that I have an extension n is that CAB are going to help me after 4th Jan! 
But they need all of the info from me first 
If they do want to assess me - it's going to be a one sided conversion (my speech is extremely limited) and it's going to have to be face to face (equality law) 

Also if they do want to carry out an assessment - They will have to pass a lateral flow test prior to their visit because both my wife and myself are classed as extremely vulnerable to Covid!
Hand sanitiser will be provided at the entrance 

[Deleted User]

I have found an incredibly useful document - from last year

It's my medical retirement facts (reasons etc) - from the OH company who agreed it - "HML" Health Management Ltd - a company who sift PIP cases - it gives all of my medical history in one document !

it ends Conclusion
"Based on the available evidence from his treating GP and specialists from orthopaedic, urologist and speech & language therapist, ICRT, it has been apparent that he had struggled in his role for a while. He had difficulties in all aspects of maintaining his activities of daily living including mobility, balance, dexterity, speech, and communication."