Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
PIP and receipt of CA - another DWP gem
In a submission received today;
“Although X has identified a high level of personal restrictions, she is entitled to CA. To be entitled to CA a person must provide at least 35 hours of care to another person each week. The Tribunal may wish to explore this further.”
sigh! - will this be the latest cut and paste para. to appear in cases where the PIP claimant received CA?
Sadly, any number of colleagues within our sector see receipt of CA and PIP DL as being incompatible and being compensated twice! Some tribunals take a similar view, sadly, although I always remember that care is not given an elaborate definition and by its very nature can be anticipatory, and then cite Moran v SSWP.
What of a disabled carer of someone on PIP who scores points entirely for aids and appliances? Will we see a loss of CA in those circumstances, given that the proposed reduction in the number of aids and appliances descriptors was dropped?
Peter, spotted the very phrase in one of my subs recently. Most irritating indeed. I quoted from R(IS)8/02. Appeal succeeded.
Yes, cut and paste indeed. Exactly the same words and phrases have appeared in a case file I recently received from them. In my case a woman with Parkinson’s disease who receives PIP is also caring for her severely mentally ill adult daughter. Frankly I don’t care if the tribunal does want to look into it because the CA award is entirely justified. Let them look all they want.
The other thing that really irritates me is the ‘having their cake and eating it’ side of it. You know how quick the DWP is to insist that PIP and ESA, for example. are seperate benefits with seperate criteria when it suits them (where there is a clear conflict between a WCA outcome and a PIP assessment outcome) but evidently that isn’t the case with PIP and CA. Grrrrr.
And thanks for posting that link Daphne- appreciated.
This is off to the side a bit, but I have just read a Mandatory Reconsideration Notice which contains two sentences which I have read several times and I just can’t put them together. To quote (verbatim)
‘You were observed to be pleasant polite with appropriate humour. Therefore you are not regarded to be at risk of drowning while bathing or of a burning incident while cooking’
‘You were observed to be pleasant polite with appropriate humour. Therefore you are not regarded to be at risk of drowning while bathing or of a burning incident while cooking’
quite how the first sentence can be said to lead to the conclusion in the second sentence has to be a mystery worthy of Poirot…...
Not drowning but laughing.
Laughter is the best medicine clearly.
Although by implication it suggests the Departmental view is that only bad tempered unpleasant people have issues with drowning/burning. Mind you, if it kept happening it would make you quite bad tempered, I’d imagine.
Should have gone in there and told a load of Jim Davidson jokes, clearly.
In a submission received today;
“Although X has identified a high level of personal restrictions, she is entitled to CA. To be entitled to CA a person must provide at least 35 hours of care to another person each week. The Tribunal may wish to explore this further.”
sigh! - will this be the latest cut and paste para. to appear in cases where the PIP claimant received CA?
This is clearly standard text from the DWP. It is driven by the corporate inaccurate view and prejudice that people are being double paid and that “really” disabled people cannot be carers (which raises a possible discrimination issue).
Here is my own standard text in my submissions which I use regularly:
“By way of a preliminary point, I draw the Tribunal’s attention to the very poor quality of the Respondent’s submission. Not a single piece of legislation or caselaw is cited in support of any of their assertions. The Respondent appears to be oblivious to the basic point that the law applies to questions of benefit entitlement.
“I am also concerned about the comment on page C of the Respondent’s submission concerning the Appellant’s entitlement to Carers Allowance (which is for her husband whom she lives with). This strikes me as being motivated by bad faith and prejudice. As the Respondent should be aware, there is no definition of “care” being provided in order to qualify for Carers Allowance and it includes companionship and supervision which is easy to satisfy when someone lives with a partner. See paragraph1.200 Social Security Legislation 2015/15 Volume 1.”