× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

PIP mobility

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

Is it just me or is activity 1b of the mobility assessment a bit of a joke?

Needs prompting to be able toundertake any journey to avoid overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant.

How on earth would “reminding, encouraging or explaining by another person;” all activities that are entirely prospective & anticipatory to an activity, mitigate a person’s distress while engaging that activity?

 

 

Edmund Shepherd
forum member

Tenancy Income, Royal Borough of Greenwich, London

Send message

Total Posts: 508

Joined: 4 December 2013

I suppose they may just need a gentle nudge out the front door? I’ve met people before who can function inside and get around outside, but have a psychological block about leaving the house.

benefitsadviser
forum member

Sunderland West Advice Project

Send message

Total Posts: 1003

Joined: 22 June 2010

We all know that people who are terrified of the outdoors are immediately anxiety free when accompanied outdoors.

Without exception…......


Welcome to DWP la la la land

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

benefitsadviser - 20 October 2014 03:12 PM


Welcome to DWP la la la land

Not sure that’s quite the way a FtT will phrase it but I expect to find out before too long!

Mr Finch
forum member

Benefits adviser - Isle of Wight CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 509

Joined: 4 March 2011

There seem to be a number of consistency problems with PIP descriptors. This activity is particularly badly drafted.

The benchmark (0 points) for this activity is “Can plan and follow the route of a journey unaided” so we know to score 0 this must be possible reliably, to an acceptable standard, and as often as needed. So a person who has some problems going out unprompted reliably must logically meet a higher descriptor. But the next descriptor up requires that the claimant be unable to undertake ‘any journey’ without prompting. A claimant with some problems therefore falls between descriptors a and b, which scores an unspecified number of points.

Descriptor e (unable to undertake any journey because of distress) would also appear both to represent a greater level of disability, and to be more restricted as to the cause, than f (unable to follow a journey for any reason without another person), and is therefore entirely redundant.

past caring
forum member

Welfare Rights Adviser - Southwark Law Centre, Peckham

Send message

Total Posts: 1116

Joined: 25 February 2014

DManville - 20 October 2014 02:23 PM

Is it just me or is activity 1b of the mobility assessment a bit of a joke?

Needs prompting to be able toundertake any journey to avoid overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant.

How on earth would “reminding, encouraging or explaining by another person;” all activities that are entirely prospective & anticipatory to an activity, mitigate a person’s distress while engaging that activity?

I’m not sure that they are entirely prospective & anticpatory…

reminding - No, it’s ok. This is the right route. Remember last time we came there was a man outside the Argos on the corner and you laughed because you said he had the same face as his dog? Well it’s just around the next corner - you’ll see it in a minute…..

encouraging - I’m sorry the bus driver was a bit rude. I know that when you touched your Oyster to the reader you didn’t realise it was the wrong way round and you weren’t trying to avoid the fare. And he was wrong to speak to you that way. But he was ok when I explained, wasn’t he? And the money has come off your card now, so if we get off the bus and get on the next one instead you’ll have to pay twice. And we’ll get there early if we stay on - remember how you said you wanted to get there early to get the best seats?

explaining - I know that you didn’t mean to forget your bus pass and there’s plenty of money left on it, but the bus driver doesn’t know that. The return fare is going to cost the same as it did for us to get here - £1.50. So if you’ve only got £2.00 with you you aren’t going to be able to afford the fare if you decide to buy a bag of crisps and a can of pop now. Why don’t we get them when we get back?

Inverclyde HSCP Advice Services
forum member

Inverclyde Council

Send message

Total Posts: 142

Joined: 25 June 2010

Uh huh… but if the person needs to be present to do all that explaining persuading and whatnot then wouldn’t the claimant score under 1(d) Cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey… ‘without another person’...

I read 1b as needing to be prommpted to go out but can manage themselves when out…

SamW
forum member

Lambeth Every Pound Counts

Send message

Total Posts: 430

Joined: 26 July 2012

Phil Cole - 20 October 2014 04:43 PM

Uh huh… but if the person needs to be present to do all that explaining persuading and whatnot then wouldn’t the claimant score under 1(d) Cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey… ‘without another person’...

I read 1b as needing to be prommpted to go out but can manage themselves when out…

I think that as far as the DWP is concerned at least ‘following a route’ refers to navigation and orientation. The obvious examples are people with sensory (particularly sight) problems and people with learning disabilities.

Interestingly ‘following a route’ seems to be one of the few phrases that is not closely defined in the legislation. I think that as advisers we’ll need to be trying to push at the boundaries of what the DWP intended and hope for sympathetic UT decisions. The obvious argument is that many claimants who would normally (when accompanied) be able to navigate unprompted and unassisted will lose this ability when distressed by other issues.

To be honest I remain surprised that this set of descriptors has not been challenged as being discriminatory towards people with MH problems. Descriptor 1E (10 points) seems to describe somebody with a higher degree of restriction on their ability to get around (Cannot undertake any journey…) than Descriptor 1F (12 points - Cannot follow the route of an familiar journey without the help of another person etc). 1E describes somebody who cannot go out anywhere at all, even with assistance. 1F describes somebody who can go out to familiar places when assisted. Why does the latter get more points?

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

The logic is a bit hard to fathom but I think rests on the distinction made between ‘planning’ and ‘following’ journeys and seems to be a way of distinguishing between different kinds of disabilities, such as mental health, blindness, LD, etc.

P. 113 – 114 of the Assessment Guide states for descriptor B:

For example: may apply to claimants who are able to follow the route of their journey themselves, e.g. they can work out where they need to go, follow directions and deal with unexpected changes in their journey. However, due to their mental health condition or impairment, they find it distressing, unless they are prompted by another person. This could mean someone accompanying them on journeys to provide support, but it could also be prompting at some point in the journey but not simply encouragement when leaving the home or a preference to be accompanied.

D, E & F cannot be met by anyone with a MH condition according to this guidance, only B. The higher descriptors seem to be for LD, etc.

From memory, this guidance was changed in May 14. Benefits and Work produced a guidance document for challenging decisions made on this basis which can be found on the members area of their website.

Mr Finch
forum member

Benefits adviser - Isle of Wight CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 509

Joined: 4 March 2011

The new DWP guidance seems like an attempt to grasp for the thinnest of straws. It’s not consistent with their own earlier guidance that was consulted on. One of the examples discussed here earlier showed a claimant with epilepsy getting the enhanced mobility based on supervision needs when following a route. The original guidance said this:

On following a journey:

A person should only be considered able to follow an unfamiliar journey if they are capable of using public transport (bus or train).
‘Follow’ does not include the physical act of moving, it is the cognitive and intellectual ability to reliably follow a route that should be considered.
Small disruptions and unexpected changes, such as roadworks and changed bus stops, are commonplace when following journeys and consideration should be given to whether the claimant would be able to carry out the activity as described if such commonplace disruptions occur

[my emphasis]

Their additional claim that prompting does not include encouraging to go out is also entirely at odds with the definition of prompting in the regulations and any common sense reading of the descriptor.

SamW
forum member

Lambeth Every Pound Counts

Send message

Total Posts: 430

Joined: 26 July 2012

Do you have a link to the new guidance? The document on the Gov website (PIP assessment guide) is dated May 2014, has it been updated?

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

The 27 May one is the latest version (as far as I know)

Mr Finch
forum member

Benefits adviser - Isle of Wight CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 509

Joined: 4 March 2011

The new guidance has been uploaded:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/personal-independence-payment-assessment-guide-for-assessment-providers

The changes to mobility descriptor 11 are slightly different than proposed as they now say the ‘following’ descriptors are merely ‘unlikely’ to apply to mental health conditions. Presumably they recognise a blanket rule would be unlawful, but if anything, the basis for such a statement is even less clear if it is not a blanket rules as if the descriptor can apply to anxiety in principle then it would seem to be factually rather likely to apply.

They have removed the proposed requirement that prompting be needed throughout the journey and not just before, which is an improvement, although they seem to be taking a harder line one the meaning of ‘any journey’, suggesting that to score for 11(e) someone must have not gone out for many years. This is entirely at odds with the need for reliability and the 50% of days rule. They also try to define ‘overwhelming’ in a rather dubious that adds a further gloss to the prescribed functional limitation.

I haven’t noticed whether there are any changes to other areas yet.

Mr Finch
forum member

Benefits adviser - Isle of Wight CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 509

Joined: 4 March 2011

I’ve been thinking about their definition of ‘follow’ a bit more, and this is my latest opinion.

Under regulation 5 the descriptors in column 2 must relate to the activity in column 1. The activity in column 1 for the first mobility activity is ‘planning and following journeys’. So all the descriptors in this activity must be considering the ability to either plan or follow journeys.

Although descriptors B and E use the word ‘undertake’ instead of follow, they must be using it as a synonym for follow. Hence ‘follow’ in A, D, and F, and the activity title itself, must mean undertake as well.