PIP Mental health cuts

It's always difficult to take someone seriously when they use scaremongering tactics to make a point.

PIP for those claiming solely on mental health grounds is not being stopped. A mobility award has always been unlikely in these circumstances.

The daily care component allows for someone to claim carers, SDP to be payable if applicable and is the most significant in terms of monetary value.

Tom

kingfisherblue wrote: »

Fully agree that the OP is scaremongering. Tommo gives a more factual account of what is happening.

Serious question - if someone is agoraphobic and going out causes them serious psychological distress, how is extra mobility money, or a car, going to help? I'm not trying to be unsympathetic, but I just don't see how a car or the extra cash can help. In such serious cases, presumably a person is unlikely to attend a counsellor or therapist.

The story is poor in that it doesn't give the technical reality but I think the petition largely valid and of course there is notable political objection to what the government seeks to do here. I have gone into some detail on the Arms discussion board thread on this issue and don't want to drag it out here (although I probably will...lol.).

The government appears to using what it has wrongly indicated is poor legal judgements (which were well considered and detailed and ultimately considered by 3 judge panel looking at other cases of upper tribunals relevant) as a cover to try to cut costs. (As I point out even the DWP in one tribunal case stated very clearly in their own words in written submission that someone with severe psychological distress could trigger 1d or 1f). It is clearly unhappy that so many people with MH problems are getting enhanced rate Daily Care. Targeting that though isn't so simple as the mobility as I imagine mental health claimants are scoring across many low scoring descriptors for DL. On mobility however they clearly want to try to prevent awards to people with MH problems or at least block anything beyond a standard award...this is easier to target with only 2 activities and one that largely excludes MH claimants (and from DWP POV seems to always exclude them). The reality is the DWP seem to be following their own guidelines which means that those who have benefitted from favourable legal rulings is likely very small especially since you have to also consider the disabilities in question would be very severe to trigger Mob 1d and certainly 1f. On Mobility 2 psychosomatic symptoms are typically seemingly ignored too as per DWP and private HCP dogmatic approaches. This ugly attempt to insert exclusions of particular conditions triggering descriptors when all currently invite along with the legislation an approach of looking at disability regardless of underlying cause (except in explanation) is troubling. I doubt it would be the end to such amendments and I expect Mob 2 could be next. The guise that this is 'tidying up laws which they've badly written (they say judges poorly interpret)' but I find that unconvincing a claim.

On your point.. which I do feel is largely irrelevant as PIP only vaguely looks to make actual financial redress (and there are other anomalies that have not gone unnoticed in that regard by judges and me.. Mob 2 classic example)... there are many approaches that could be taken. In fact if you look at the descriptors you seem to be arguing that financial aid to someone triggering descriptor Mob 1e would be useless... yet that descriptor remains unaffected... in fact I trigger it and get a mobility award as a result. They're inserting an 'other than psychological distress' into 1c,1d,1f. In particular with 1d and 1f since they're about following a route presumably financial support could indeed be life changing... since if someone triggers the descriptors as they exist now then it implies that with support they may well be able to follow routes outdoors...i.e. go out successfully accompanied or perhaps even go out if say driven in a private car. It is probably for 1e that people could qualify for mobility for mental health reasons and see little use for the money - although of course in some instances support could work or private treatment help. Extra costs could be incurred to overcome or replace going out. I get out with support once in a while. I made a strong case for 1f applying but the DWP ignored effectively all I wrote including the supportive case law and facts of my case. I'd have pursued the matter to tribunal had my domestic circumstances been different.

It is unfortunate that the Op misses a link and accuracy regarding the thread - and sadly the petition is what they've copied the misleading words of... the government could simply respond to this poor petition with "People with mental health problems can claim PIP and many do receive awards and will continue to do so...then some other stuff about Mental Health getting greater attention in the NHS". But there is an important matter at play I feel... this government continues to target the most vulnerable in society and perhaps they thought they could sneak these changes through under false guise... I hope they face some challenge at least so they will be less hasty in future with similar changes. PIP was meant to reduce the bill of disability... that is failing... so now we're going to see this type of approach to increasing the bar for 'disabled'.

arenaman wrote: »

I've interpreted this as an attempt to weed out people claiming just because they've got anxiety or panic about a journey rather than those with an underlying cognitive impairment (which my son has) preventing him being able to plan out and travel a journey, am I wrong?

I believe, as in the case of my daughter, that the cognitive disability will mean your son will meet the criteria - I was told, in simple terms, that as my daughter was born with the problem, that she would qualify for help under the new rules. People who have 'developed symptoms' through stress related illness/PTSD may fail to qualify