Pip - Planning and following journeys

Crazydennie

My daughter has been awarded standard rate mobility but I think it should be enhanced. 

She has no physical impediment to walking but she will only leave the house once maybe twice a week and only if I accompany her. She had to quit college as I was not able to take her and she was unable to use the bus due to her level of anxiety. I think that she qualifies for 12 points as she is unable to follow a familiar route eg college unless accompanied. Am I assessing this point correctly?

Muttleythefrog

Crucially for many claimants with severe mental health problems the (PIP Mobility Activity 1) 10 point scoring descriptor "e. Cannot undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant" and 12 point descriptor "f. Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person..." can be applicable but it comes down to what prevails most of the time. Logically if anxiety and distress prevents going out most of the time then descriptor f cannot apply most of the time in practice as the claimant doesn't get to the point of trying to follow a journey route. 

If she is only able to leave the house once or twice a week and only if accompanied it suggests to me predominantly her ability to go out on journeys is described by descriptor e which is quite a high benchmark of disablement. The "Cannot undertake any journey"/ "Cannot undertake any journey" should not be interpreted literally as reliability criteria applies pertaining to safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly, in a reasonable time.

This scenario is the case for myself also... I can get out but for most of the time I can't due to overwhelming distress if I try. One advantage of descriptor e is it leads automatically to qualification for blue badge (which conveniently for my particular local authority also is satisfactory evidence for a disabled bus pass!)

If one is to make an argument descriptor f applies most of the time then one probably also has to argue descriptor e does not. We have seen one rare case on MSE where a claimant ignored advice on this and appealed and ended up losing their entire award as they were considered unbelievable by a tribunal panel. So do be careful if trying to argue a case for descriptor f at any point in the process where descriptor e is considered.

Crazydennie

Thanks that is very helpful. If I could go out more my daughter would accompany me. But my own mental health problems prevent me from going out very often. So essentially I am limiting her award? 

Muttleythefrog

Crazydennie said:

Thanks that is very helpful. If I could go out more my daughter would accompany me. But my own mental health problems prevent me from going out very often. So essentially I am limiting her award? 

Well....the test for applicability of descriptors often is theoretical one. If it were to be true that she isn't particularly restricted by mental illness in going out (and so descriptor e actually is not applicable) but is actually being restricted by lack of someone to accompany her then it is possible f applies... again a high benchmark. My concern would be that... and I'm trying to think generally here... if someone's mental health problems are so severe as to be considered for descriptor f then it is likely also descriptor e is a serious consideration unless their MH problems become quite specific to the following of a familiar route/journey outdoors rather than the getting to the point of starting one. It would take some thinking about I suspect... there will be cases but I wonder if they'd be fairly rare. Other people here with more real case exposure might have better guidance but crucially the first question for you to ask (theoretically) is would she be able to go out most of the time reliably to the point she can undertake journeys reliably. If the answer is yes then descriptor e may not apply although at face value it appears it would due to her lack of ability to get out. The question for me would then become.. in theory... if she is successfully able to go out reliably most of the time for the majority of familiar journeys do they 'fail' to be reliably completed due to her mental health/cognitive problems.

I suspect.. but I could be wrong... descriptor e is more likely applicable here but if you feel it is not and actually it is your lack of availability preventing her going out on journeys then consider descriptor f. But obviously my caution as per previous post if trying to argue this as an award of descriptor e is significant and for a claimant to be in a position to argue it does not apply most of the time would carry risks. Both e and f are high benchmarks of disability.

Crazydennie

She is 17, on the spectrum and very dependant on me as her single parent. I can always get her out the house if she is going to be with me but I am a special case and know how to stop her panicing, others would not be able to do the same. I'm thinking that e is probably the right descriptor based on your posts so thank you.

Muttleythefrog

Crazydennie said:

She is 17, on the spectrum and very dependant on me as her single parent. I can always get her out the house if she is going to be with me but I am a special case and know how to stop her panicing, others would not be able to do the same. I'm thinking that e is probably the right descriptor based on your posts so thank you.

This is a decent guide on the activity to read through.. not recent but still looks applicable. 
https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/pip_guidance_nov_2017_11.pdf

You may or may not agree that the entry in the guidance that follows could be relevant here. But it does sound to me descriptor e applies. Make sure to get blue badge applied for if it will be worth it and she hasn't already.

A claimant who satisfies 1e cannot also satisfy 1f. If they cannot undertake a single journey on the majority of days, then 1e will be the applicable descriptor, even if there are occasions when they could follow a familiar route, if accompanied.

itsthelittlethings

I think if she can’t go out without another person, and gets distressed even with another person there then both descriptors apply.

Crazydennie

"The descriptor refers to “a familiar journey” rather than “any familiar journey”. 

Accordingly, claimants can satisfy the descriptor by showing that they typically 

need to be accompanied by another person or an assistance dog or to use an 

orientation aid on the majority of days when undertaking familiar journeys (it’s not 

necessary to show that they need such support for every possible familiar journey 

on most days)"

I think that my daughter meets the above statement for 'f' that was given in the link. It states "accompanied for the majority of days when undertaking a familiar journey." I think the when is important. 

Muttleythefrog

Crazydennie said:

"The descriptor refers to “a familiar journey” rather than “any familiar journey”. 

Accordingly, claimants can satisfy the descriptor by showing that they typically 

need to be accompanied by another person or an assistance dog or to use an 

orientation aid on the majority of days when undertaking familiar journeys (it’s not 

necessary to show that they need such support for every possible familiar journey 

on most days)"

I think that my daughter meets the above statement for 'f' that was given in the link. It states "accompanied for the majority of days when undertaking a familiar journey." I think the when is important. 

The DWP have made clear e and f cannot both apply as they would consider what happens for the majority of the time. So I definitely would not interpret 'when' as simply singling out journeys and looking at what happens at those in isolation to the disregard of what happens for the Mobility Activity 1 for majority of time (which may be how you are thinking... I could easily be wrong!).

I think this guidance repeats a lot of what was in the link... but DWP guidance.. which reiterates the need to consider whether e applies... if it does then f cannot. Each individual case is of course completely unique and those closest to claimant or claimant themselves are likely to be the best experts on interpreting and understanding how disablement plays out and it could be quite complex... I suspect it is complex here because mental health problems usually are and then you add in potential autistic considerations and your interactions that seem to influence whether they will try a task. As an outsider it's not possible really to determine which Mob Activity 1 descriptor would be applicable here... but definitely tread carefully with any challenge or argument (at any stage.. reassessment.. reconsiderations.. appeals etc) that e does not apply as it carries risk given it has been awarded and does directly lead to Standard Mobility payment. If you feel e does not apply then the link gives good guidance on the applicability of f.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/personal-independence-payment-assessment-guide-for-assessment-providers/pip-assessment-guide-part-2-the-assessment-criteria

A claimant who satisfies 1E cannot also satisfy 1F. If they cannot undertake a single journey on the majority of days due to overwhelming psychological distress, then 1E will be the applicable descriptor, even if there are occasions when they could follow a familiar route, if accompanied.

Spoonie_Turtle

My brain has not been braining very well so my apologies if I've misunderstood (and I haven't been able to thoroughly read all the posts), but:

If, theoretically, you were able to accompany her to go out on most days and she would be able to do that without overwhelming distress, then descriptor F would apply.
You would have to clearly demonstrate that E does not apply though, that she is okay as long as she is accompanied and the only reason she doesn't go out on the majority of days is because the support she needs isn't available to do so.

You know her best, and the threshold for 'overwhelming psychological distress' is a high one.

For descriptor E, the guidance says:
"This descriptor applies to claimants where undertaking any journey on the majority of days causes overwhelming psychological distress (OPD) despite being aided."
If you accompanying her means she can do those journeys without that distress, and would be able to reliably on the majority of days if you hypothetically could go out that often yourself, then E would not apply.

teddysmum

My 19 year-old grandson's case is that he could get lost and panic on what seems to be a familiar route, but he is taken to and returned from college by taxi and my husband transports him to and from annual work experience, but otherwise he doesn't want to go out, liking peace at home with younger siblings with parents, or goes with family when he chooses not to be alone. He has taken to walking the recently adopted family dog, near to home, some days. However, he does qualify for the higher mobility rate, even though he doesn't want to make solo journeys, whatever the location.