Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
court proceedings have begun re PIP mobility change
from the Disability Benefits Consortium -
‘Court proceedings will begin in Birmingham today to determine whether the Government’s decision to change the eligibility criteria for the disability benefit Personal Independence Payment was unlawful.
At the end of 2012 the DWP announced, with no consultation, that the distance people would need to walk in order to qualify for the highest rate of the mobility part of the benefit would change from 50 metres, to just 20 metres.
Now, if disabled people can walk more than 20 metres – even using aids such as sticks – they will no longer qualify for the highest rate of the benefit.’
High Court PIP judgment now available:
‘...procedure adopted by the Secretary of State was not unfair, nor unlawful’
Summary in rightsnet news later ....
here’s the rightsnet news story on it -
[ Edited: 10 Jul 2015 at 10:38 am by shawn mach ]Understand that case is in the Court of Appeal next Tuesday 14 July
More info: floated for hearing 14th or 15th
http://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/listing_calendar
Search for Case no. 20142640
[ Edited: 13 Jul 2015 at 10:22 am by shawn mach ]Decision published - appeal fails sadly - consultation on PIP mobility criteria ruled not unlawful - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/1033.html
All very well, but the decision rather hinges on:
“1.4 We have… sought to develop an assessment which considers and reflects the impact of a broader range of impairment types than [DLA]. We believe our proposed assessment will take better account of sensory impairments, developmental disorders, learning disabilities, cognitive impairments and mental health conditions.
and
the Respondent’s intention to re-allocate resources from those with physical impairments to those with non-physical impairments, such that it was the result that the “Moving around” criteria would inevitably be more restrictive in respect of physical mobility than the parallels under the DLA regime.
The respondent seems to be arguing in other cases, and with some success so far, that mental health conditions are also treated much less favourably under PIP mobility than under DLA: since this is a large sub-category, presumably the result is that taken as a whole non-physical disabilities also lose out.