PIP and getting in and out of a car

I don’t even know how to start writing a submission without sounding overtly sarcastic.

She is able to get in and out of the car demonstrating adequate hip movements to get in and out of a bath.

She is able to get in and out of the car demonstrating adequate hip movements to lift her legs towards herself to get dressed.

How can the DWP justify these comparisons? Don’t answer that!

Is it a Toyota Aqua? Perhaps she can put a hose through the sunroof, get undressed whilst the car fills up with water and then take a bath in it.

I tend to ignore these type of things in DWP submissions rather than respond to them, life is too short.

Although Tribunal panels are wise to these comments i often think they shouldn’t go unchallenged.  Can’t wait to put my point to the Presenting Officer.
Thought we had maybe moved on from the ‘they can drive a car therefore…..’ argument.

No evidence of difficulties with your hands and the fact you use a zimmer frame and can control a mobility scooter shows you have adequate grip.

One of our clients had the same response recently with respect to her reported need to use an aid to sit down and get up from, the toilet.  Closer investigation established that she could get into and out of, a car, but only by holding on to the door frame and door.

Maybe ask your clients to describe exactly how they enter and leave a vehicle.

Always useful to remind ourselves what the challenge is. Is it to prove a multitude of plainly ridiculous things wrong or is it to get the client PIP? Sometimes those things go hand in hand but most often I fall on the BC Welfare Rights side of things i.e. I don’t engage. A logical, well evidenced submission tends to render discussion of the plainly stupid moot.