Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
PIP and Deaf applicants
We are having problems with Deaf people being turned down for both elements of PIP. The stock phrase seems to be ‘there is no medical evidence of a mental health or cognitive impairment which would impact ’ etc etc . there does not seem to be any recognition or understanding of the real problems Deaf people face with communication particularly those who are not sign language users. Any suggestions on how my team can help our clients? We have had a lot of success in the past with DLA but this is a whole new ball game and as the transfer from DLA to PIP gets underway will only get worse.
We have had 1 loss on appeal even though the appeal panel recognised the difficulties but said the client did not fit the criteria -
the 2nd has been turned down at the point of paper application, a mandatory reconsideration has been requested. How do we counter the mental health and cognitive impairment aspect of this?
Go back to the law - there is no need for there to be a mental health/cognitive impairment to fit any of the descriptors - no division as with esa - you need to show that your client cannot reliably do the activity - remind the tribunal of the amendment regulations
where can I find the amendment regulations? thanks
2013/455 is the amendment to the PIP regs which introduced the ‘reliably’ condition:
Where C’s ability to carry out an activity assessed, C is to be assessed as satisfying a descriptor only if C can do so–
(a) safely;
(b) to an acceptable standard;
(c) repeatedly; and
(d) within a reasonable time period.
You can find a full copy of the amended regs @
http://lawvolumes.dwp.gov.uk/the-law-relating-to-social-security/
Particularly at MR stage, you might benefit from having a look at the assessment guidance:
DMs will not necessarily follow this so can be useful to chuck them choice quotes in a recon request. At appeal stage it is less useful as it is not law, just guidance and may be a harsher interpretation than you would be arguing.
With regards to hearing impairments, the obvious activity is 7. Communicating verbally. 8 points can be scored for needing communication support to understand/express basic information.
Consider ability to express AND understand information. If they lip read, is this consistent? How does this ability differ between strangers and people they know well. If they are not a BSL user, how do they communicate? Again, how does this differ between strangers and family? When they go to the GP, shopping etc. etc. how do they communicate? Who do they have with them? Do they limit or avoid their activities because they struggle to express themselves/understand others?
With regard to mobility activity 1 - the activity being assessed is the ability to plan and follow a journey. You can still score pts on this activity without a MH condition/cognitive impairment despite DWP stock phrasing.
Consider public transport e.g. information being communicated verbally over PA at a train station or on a train, disruptions to journey - would clmt be able to adequately ask for and understand help/directions etc?
I’m not convinced that the switch from DLA to PIP has necessarily caused a problem of itself. Usually it’s the lack of anecdotal supporting evidence on a claim pack that’s the real issue and, in the case of PIP, people saying they can do stuff when the real answer is no when they can’t do it repeatedly, reliably, safely and in a reasonable time. The move to functional tests within PIP has big advantages for the sensorily impaired so something else must be going wrong.
Putting aside the traditional emphasis on a hearing impairment leading to communication problems and issues with travel (which depresses the hell out of me as it’s a stereotype that, true or not, many would do well to move beyond) I would always be looking at stuff like the ability to read, understand and write English. Many with sensory impairments will struggle with basic tasks if BSL is their first language and English their second and if they don’t have BSL then it’s a leap to assume their English must consequently be okay.
I would therefore always be looking at planning and preparing food as well as budgeting. Same issues can impact on the ability to reliably take medication too. Can the claimant read food labels; use by dates; cooking instructions? Can they understand a utility bill and so on? Can they read the instructions on their meds? Can they understand food ingredients when shopping or indeed prices?
After that it’s just a case of providing anecdotal evidence. In other words, it’s not enough to assert “My hearing impairment causes me communication issues”. That’s an empty assertion. 2 or 3 examples of the last time it happened plus the who, what, when, where and how moves you from assertion to evidence. I always explain to clients that WROs are not fans of form filling either; nor do we have “magic” forms of words that will always work. It’s just about the anecdotal evidence supporting the assertions. If you don’t have the anecdotes you probably don’t have a claim.
Yes, I too can do sweeping generalisations :)
Can hearing aids and things like inhalers be treated as aid or appliances in relation to Regulation 2 of the PIP regs? Then points awarded for there use? Has this been tried at any case anyone knows of?
“(a) means a device to improve, provide or replace a physical or mental function;”
I can’t see a problem with a hearing aid or an inhaler.
Former improves hearing. Latter improves breathing.
Hi have we had any case law in this area ?
Cheers
Billy
We won a PIP appeal for a deaf tenant in May 2015. The tenant is deaf from birth, has 2 hearing aids and lip-reads. Tenant works full time in a large company. No medical assessment was done. Tenant only scored 2 points (for use of hearing aids). MR did not change the decision.
Our ‘tribunal strategy’ was based on letting the tenant do the communications. the Tribunal was informed that the tenant lip-reads. First hurdle was that the Tribunal clerk did not lip-read and was unable to get simple info across (such as his name and role) to the tenant. I had to intervene (while thinking ‘good illustration of needing communication support to understand basic verbal info’). None of the Tribunal were good in lip-reading and after 10 minutes of questioning, we were sent out. The Tribunal decided on entitlement to Enhanced Daily Living (8 points for 7D and 4 points for 9C) and Standard Mobility (10 points for 1D). the Tribunal also said that it was inappropriate to fix a term.
We left about 30 minutes after the start time of the Tribunal with a decision.
We requested the Statement of Reasons. Some interesting points:
The basic flaw was that the HCP prepared the papers based upon the papers only.
It was extremely difficult to understand the evidence the appellant was giving because of the difficulty she encountered with speech as a result of her deafness.
The difficulty in communication has, as indicated by the appellant in her claim pack, to become wary of large groups of people because of the difficulty she has in communication. Consequently she needs support from another person to be able to engage socially face to face with other people.
re Mobility:
Has tried satellite navigation system but found not able to navigate safely as needed to look at the map on the satellite navigation system and at the same time keep her eyes on the road and not being able to hear the vocal instructions.
Cannot use public transport because of difficulty in communicating to the driver the desired destination and being unable to necessarily understand enquiries from the driver.
Ineke
Isos Housing