× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

PIP mobility on mental health grounds

 1 2 3 >  Last ›

Redscooby
forum member

Welfare Benefits at Mary Ward Legal Centre, London

Send message

Total Posts: 55

Joined: 10 September 2014

Hi everyone

Just after some advice really - my client was awarded the enhanced rate of DL finally in Nov 14 after claiming in Sept 13.  He requested a MR of the 4 pts awarded for mobility and provided PIP with 2 letters; one from his GP & one from his psychologist stating that for at least 50% of the time he cannot go out at all due to overwhelming distress.

He’s just had the MR decision and thankfully he still has his enhanced DL but still refused mobility (still 4 pts).  He wants to appeal.

Has anyone had any decisions for mobility purely on mental health grounds?  Even if he support from another person he would still be unable to undertake a journey.  Waiting to receive a copy of the MRN.

This will be my first PIP appeal.

Thanks

Jane OP
forum member

The National Autistic Society, Welfare Rights, Nottingham

Send message

Total Posts: 161

Joined: 13 January 2011

Hi,

I’ve been successful at tribunal getting standard mobility (10 points - ‘you need another person…. to follow the route of an unfamiliar journey’) for a person with Asperger’s & anxiety issues. DWP originally awarded 0 for mob.

Focused on the reg 4 (2a)&(4) rule about being able to do the activity safely, repeatedly & to an acceptable standard and made the argument that very often having to give up and go home, or getting into conflict etc meant that the person wasn’t ‘following the route’ in a safe or successful way.

Sounds like you might have stronger paper evidence than we had.

I’ve not had a tribunal for enhanced mob yet - that’ll be interesting.

jane

Redscooby
forum member

Welfare Benefits at Mary Ward Legal Centre, London

Send message

Total Posts: 55

Joined: 10 September 2014

Thank you - that’s good to know.  He would be happy with just the standard rate!

AdviceShop
forum member

Advice shop - West Lothian Council

Send message

Total Posts: 85

Joined: 24 June 2010

Hi

Just won a PIP appeal today where my client was awarded 12 points for being unable to follow the route of a familiar journey. Client has severe anxiety which has been brough on by a brain injury and he does not leave the house to go anywhere unless his wife is with him. Had an assessment at home by HCP who despite this had awarded 0 points. Tribunal saw differently thankfully.

Peter

Redscooby
forum member

Welfare Benefits at Mary Ward Legal Centre, London

Send message

Total Posts: 55

Joined: 10 September 2014

Very promising!

disgustedofbridport
forum member

Dorchester CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 44

Joined: 20 October 2010

My impression is that the DWP have decreed that mobility descriptor 1.D “unable to follow route of unfamiliar journey etc.” shall only be applied unto those who have a learning difficulty or cognitive impairment, and that it shall not apply to people who would have got lower-rate mobility on DLA for being prone to panic or outbursts of aggressive behaviour.

I have had about ten people who should have got standard-rate Mobility PIP (who would almost certainly have got lower-rate mobility DLA) who haven’t been awarded it, but who’ve got 4 points for 1.B (“needs prompting to undertake a journey”). Most of these people were unexpectedly awarded enhanced-rate Daily Living, so I haven’t gone to appeal with them, but I’ve got two appeals pending where I’m arguing 1.D, and one case that I was successful with .

My approach was similar to Jane’s:

1. If you look at descriptor 1.D and take into account that someone must be able to do it “safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and in a reasonable time period” and “a majority of the time”, the criteria are basically the same as lower-rate mobility DLA. How can someone who panics or gets into confrontations with people be said to be able, most of the time,  to do an unfamiliar journey “safely” (ie. without a deterioration in their health); “to an acceptable standard” or “in a reasonable time period” (they might not actually get there, it take ages, or they turn up at the other end so drained that they’re unable to do anything else), or repeatedly (could they cope with the journey back as well?)?

2. Highlight that there is no requirement for someone to have a cognitive impairment or learning difficulty in order to qualify for 1.D. even though the DWP do write this on the decision letters as a reason for not awarding 1.D.

3. The wording of the descriptor is that someone must be able to cope with an UNFAMILIAR journey ON THEIR OWN. This may be shocking, but Atos healthcare professionals don’t seem to be making findings on what may be possible for someone on their own as opposed to when someone’s with them; nor do they differentiate between familiar and unfamiliar journeys. And still more shockingly, DWP decision makers seem to be rubber-stamping Atos’s inadequate findings. I suggest making the most of failings to differentiate these things.

Steve

Den DANES
forum member

DIAL Lowestoft and Waveney

Send message

Total Posts: 110

Joined: 6 July 2010

I thought that we should be able to argue points under 11D for people with MH problems who cannot undertake an unfamiliar journey but if you look at the October 2014 guidelines it seems difficult to do so on purely mental health grounds (except in the case of the risk of violent or suicidal behaviour)
11D ‘Applies to claimants with cognitive or sensory impairments who cannot, due to their impairment, work out where to go, follow directions or deal with unexpected changes in their journey when it is unfamiliar. 
‘Follow’ does not include the physical act of moving, it is the visual, cognitive and intellectual ability to reliably navigate a route that should be considered. 
Cognitive impairment encompasses orientation (understanding of where, when and who the person is) attention, concentration and memory. 
A person who should only be considered able to follow an unfamiliar journey, if they would be capable of using public transport. 
The accompanying person should be actively navigating for the descriptor to apply. If the accompanying person is present for any other purpose, this descriptor does not apply. ‘

Likewise if they only struggle with ‘unfamiliar journeys’ then 11b does not seem to apply under the same guidelines - only if they cannot undertake ANY journey.
11b ‘Does not apply to claimants who are able to undertake SOME journeys without prompting or despite distress, 11a would be more appropriate In rare circumstances 11b may apply to violent behaviour as a result of an underlying mental or behavioural health condition. They must be unable to control their behaviour and there must be good evidence that being accompanied by another person reduces a substantial risk of the person committing a violent act.  In rare circumstances 11b may apply to someone who is actively suicidal who may require another person to accompany them out of doors. There must be good evidence that the person is a high suicide risk by, for example, high level involvement of community mental health services and a care plan

It strikes me that there is a huge black hole here preventing those who would have got Low rate mob DLA on the grounds of cannot undertake an UNFAMILIAR journey due to MH issues from getting points under activity 11.

What do others think?

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

The Assessment Guidance is not the law. The guidance states that someone may require prompting during a journey yet refuses to accept that the person doing the prompting is inevtiably accompanying them on that journey…

Edit to add (now I’m off the phone) that my first Tribunal considered this and the Judiciary seem to be quite happy to accept that people with MH problems need accompaniment too.

sticky finger edit

[ Edited: 10 Mar 2015 at 12:14 pm by Dan_Manville ]
Geri-G
forum member

Welfare reform team - North Ayrshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 91

Joined: 4 June 2013

Dan Manville - 02 February 2015 10:01 AM

The Assessment Guidance is not the law. The guidance states that someone may require prompting during a journey yet refuses to accept that the person doing teh prompting is inevtiably accompanying them on that journey…

Edit to add (now I’m off the phone) that my first Tribunal considered this and teh Judiciary seem to be quite happy to accept that people with MH problems need accompaniment too.

I am hoping that there ends up being an UT decision on this. DWP seem to insist (and inform ATOS) that if a client can undertake ANY journey, then they only qualify for 11b.Which is frankly ridiculous. I won an appeal and got 11d.

But then this is the governments aim to reduce the mobility bill.

disgustedofbridport
forum member

Dorchester CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 44

Joined: 20 October 2010

I’ve just done a PIP claim form for someone with mental health problems, and in the covering letter that I’ve sent with the claim, I said, in essence (not the exact words):

“We believe she qualifies for descriptor 11.D. Your guidance may say that you have to have a cognitive impairment or learning disability and it doesn’t apply for anxiety, but the law says “Are you the majority of the time able to follow a familiar journey on your own, safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and in a reasonable time period?” If the answer is “no”, then that person qualifies for standard-rate mobility.”

disgustedofbridport
forum member

Dorchester CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 44

Joined: 20 October 2010

If you look at the guidance DWP have just sent to Atos about judging whether someone qualifies for the Support Group for ESA on mental health grounds under Reg.35(2) “danger to health if not found to have LCWRA), they’ve done the same thing as with descriptor 11.D: they’ve put out rules on how to apply the law which bear no relation to what’s written in the law, and have failed to remember that the law is legislation, regulations and case law: NOT what the DWP want it to be in order to meet targets for how many people are awarded benefit.

Geri-G
forum member

Welfare reform team - North Ayrshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 91

Joined: 4 June 2013

We really need Case Law on this-tribunals are usually awarding higher descriptors on this. The whole 11 is badly written and wooly

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

Geri-G - 10 March 2015 12:06 PM

We really need Case Law on this-tribunals are usually awarding higher descriptors on this. The whole 11 is badly written and wooly

I fear that most Tribunals will be happy to award 11d for people with mental health grounds; more appropriate would be for DWP to redraft the guidance to reflect the proper operation of the descriptor.

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Had ER Mob awarded on mental health grounds at Tribunal today. DWP PO was there and continually pointed to guidance saying it could only be awarded if cognitive or sensory impairment. Judge asked what I thought, I said guidance was just an attempt to limit the number of awards and there was nothing in the legislation that restricted it thus. Judge seems to have agreed with me, happy days.

Brian JB
forum member

Advisor - Wirral Welfare Rights Unit, Birkenhead

Send message

Total Posts: 472

Joined: 18 June 2010

And what about activity 12 (or mobility activity 2)? “Aided” is defined as with the use of an aid or appliance OR supervision, prompting or assistance. presumably, that isn’t all down to physical factors

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

Billy Durrant - 12 March 2015 06:05 PM

Had ER Mob awarded on mental health grounds at Tribunal today. DWP PO was there and continually pointed to guidance saying it could only be awarded if cognitive or sensory impairment. Judge asked what I thought, I said guidance was just an attempt to limit the number of awards and there was nothing in the legislation that restricted it thus. Judge seems to have agreed with me, happy days.

I had ER mob awarded at Tribunal a couple of weeks ago; the PO at that hearing (punter wasn’t there) joked that they are installing a wheel of fortune at Bootle rather than actually thinking about what people are entitled to.