Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
PIP and risk of committing suicide.
I’m advising a client re PIP who says he is at risk of committing suicide. Has anyone any guidance on what is the protocol here?
1. I did a Forum Search on ‘suicide’ in the PIP forum just now and there is some mention in past posts about how the process of getting sectioned under the MHA is the alternative and more appropriate direction for clients at risk of committing suicide. So I’ll refer him to a local Mental health crisis team if need be (but he is seeing a psychiatrist anyway already).
2. On PIP DL, supervision for cooking, washing, etc, seems too tenuous to expect him to score many points. Other than that, I just cannot see how his risk of committing suicide can be a factor for PIP DL.
3. On mobility it’s not even as if his risk of committing suicide relates to following journeys, etc, though I can try to argue that it does, of course.
Any thoughts welcome, thanks in advance.
Key word is “safely”. I can see how that would relate to cooking and managing therapy as both of those could possibly involve the use of things which the claimant could use to attempt suicide e.g. sharp implements; specific medication etc. However, it would turn on the particular facts and especially the history e.g. have they contemplated/attempted previously and in what circumstances. Even then you’d need something else to score sufficient points elsewhere.
Dan will probably come in on this one. I now do risk assessments for all my clients and send it off.
Dan will probably come in on this one. I now do risk assessments for all my clients and send it off.
Not until I’ve had time to read that recent panel decision properly I won’t. Everytime I pick it up I hear “Dan can you…”
Key word is “safely”. I can see how that would relate to cooking and managing therapy ...Even then you’d need something else to score sufficient points elsewhere.
Agreed, Mike. Esp as Activity 3 only gives the single, useless point, however many hours CL needs to have his condition monitored. That was the case before the 16 March 2017 reg change and the UT case, imo, and is even more so now.
Well I picked it up this morning and someone said the fatal words. So I sorted that and picked it up again and managed to get to the end. Yay!
So, RJ looks at the risk arising from undertaking a particular activity whereas SSWP v IM 2015 UKUT 0680 AAC looks at the risks while doing those activities; they can be distinguished.
In the PIP IM Judge Jacobs told us at 18 et seq that:
“18. As I understand it, the judge is asking whether the risk that can be taken into account for preparing food or planning and following a journey must be a risk specifically related to that activity. The answer is: no. A risk that gives rise to a need for supervision need not be a risk that is unique to a particular activity or to the activities in Schedule 1 generally. It is sufficient if it is a general risk, even one that applies when the claimant is doing nothing, provided that the requirements of a particular descriptor are satisfied.
19. Take preparing food, Activity 1. The tribunal found that the claimant satisfied descriptor e, which carries 4 points:
Needs supervision or assistance to either prepare or cook a simple meal.
The issue for the tribunal was whether the claimant had a need for supervision when cooking. If he did, it did not matter whether that need was specifically related to that activity or was a general one that would affect other activities and even exist when the claimant was doing nothing at all. The descriptor was satisfied. This is so whether the other activities affected are within the scope of personal independence payment or not. Many conditions have an effect beyond the particular activities in Schedule 1 and, perhaps, generally. It would be anomalous to exclude them from the scope of personal independence payment.
20. The same applies for all activities, including planning and following journeys.”
So it would follow that if there was a real risk while undertaking the activities it might still give rise to a supervision need. The question is whether that risk is real and further to Mike’s comments above that will be a question for medical evidence. At the very least I’d expect a CPN to be involved; a lot of people experience ideation but present no real risk. If secondary services accept there is such a risk they’d probably be doing something about it.