PIP Descriptor Anomalies

J.Mckendrick - 04 December 2015 12:59 PM

So there we have it, authority that anything and every thing can be deemed to be an aid or adaption as per CPIP/2168/2015 [2015] UKUT 572 (AAC).

An aid is defined in regulation 2 of the PIP Regulations as ‘any device which improves, provides or replaces an impaired physical or mental function’.

Therefore medication itself could be deemed to be an aid in improving someone’s mental function in that enabling a client to develope the motivation to cook, eat, take medication, wash ,dress, engage with people etc.

I fear Judge Jacobs has his doubts…

In CPIP/3369/2015 he has invited subs from the SoS as to whether Judge Mark was correct in NA v SSWP .

Watch this space!

Dan Manville - 11 January 2016 12:51 PM

I fear Judge Jacobs has his doubts…

In CPIP/3369/2015 he has invited subs from the SoS as to whether Judge Mark was correct in NA v SSWP .

Watch this space!

Judge Jacobs did indeed have his doubts and has dissented from Judge Mark’s approach.

Decision to follow once I’ve rescanned it to a suitable size to attach.

Bump!

I can see the logic in Jacobs’s reasons to some extent, but I’m struggling to work out where this leaves things more widely beyond removing the bed (and shoes) arguments.

Is it a reasonable development or a severe blow to claimants across the activities?

Mr Finch - 06 May 2016 12:18 PM

I can see the logic in Jacobs’s reasons to some extent, but I’m struggling to work out where this leaves things more widely beyond removing the bed (and shoes) arguments.

Is it a reasonable development or a severe blow to claimants across the activities?

I’m in the “severe blow” camp.

Update; I have referred CW on to see whether it’s worth appealing. I’ll keep this thread updated.

Re my post dated 11/1/16, does CPIP/3537/2015 now confirm that the microwave descriptor is indeed a red hearing!