Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
PIP Descriptor Anomalies
forum member
Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council
Total Posts: 2262
Joined: 15 October 2012
J.Mckendrick - 04 December 2015 12:59 PMSo there we have it, authority that anything and every thing can be deemed to be an aid or adaption as per CPIP/2168/2015 [2015] UKUT 572 (AAC).
An aid is defined in regulation 2 of the PIP Regulations as ‘any device which improves, provides or replaces an impaired physical or mental function’.Therefore medication itself could be deemed to be an aid in improving someone’s mental function in that enabling a client to develope the motivation to cook, eat, take medication, wash ,dress, engage with people etc.
I fear Judge Jacobs has his doubts…
In CPIP/3369/2015 he has invited subs from the SoS as to whether Judge Mark was correct in NA v SSWP .
Watch this space!
forum member
Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council
Total Posts: 2262
Joined: 15 October 2012
Dan Manville - 11 January 2016 12:51 PMI fear Judge Jacobs has his doubts…
In CPIP/3369/2015 he has invited subs from the SoS as to whether Judge Mark was correct in NA v SSWP .
Watch this space!
Judge Jacobs did indeed have his doubts and has dissented from Judge Mark’s approach.
Decision to follow once I’ve rescanned it to a suitable size to attach.
forum member
Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council
Total Posts: 2262
Joined: 15 October 2012
Bump!
File Attachments
- bedsasaidsnot.pdf (File Size: 499KB - Downloads: 2669)
forum member
Benefits adviser - Isle of Wight CAB
Total Posts: 509
Joined: 4 March 2011
I can see the logic in Jacobs’s reasons to some extent, but I’m struggling to work out where this leaves things more widely beyond removing the bed (and shoes) arguments.
Is it a reasonable development or a severe blow to claimants across the activities?
forum member
Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council
Total Posts: 2262
Joined: 15 October 2012
Mr Finch - 06 May 2016 12:18 PMI can see the logic in Jacobs’s reasons to some extent, but I’m struggling to work out where this leaves things more widely beyond removing the bed (and shoes) arguments.
Is it a reasonable development or a severe blow to claimants across the activities?
I’m in the “severe blow” camp.
forum member
Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council
Total Posts: 2262
Joined: 15 October 2012
Update; I have referred CW on to see whether it’s worth appealing. I’ll keep this thread updated.
forum member
Welfare Benefits Team - Phoenix & Norcas
Total Posts: 279
Joined: 16 March 2012
Re my post dated 11/1/16, does CPIP/3537/2015 now confirm that the microwave descriptor is indeed a red hearing!