Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Decision Maker’s Quote of the Day
PIP assessment carried out 03/02/2017
‘You have been deemed fit to drive by the DVLA, you would have needed to pass all of the practical, theory and hazard tests. Therefore you I have decided you can plan and follow the route of a journey unaided’
Claimant passed her driving test in 1987 when she was 20
PIP assessment carried out 03/02/2017
‘You have been deemed fit to drive by the DVLA, you would have needed to pass all of the practical, theory and hazard tests. Therefore you I have decided you can plan and follow the route of a journey unaided’
Claimant passed her driving test in 1987 when she was 20
We’ve had this one. Ours was more on the lines of you can’t have anything wrong with you if you have a Motability car. His family drove him everywhere. We won. it’s a complete non-sequitur.
Playing devil’s advocate for a moment, if someone has a valid driving licence and does in fact drive, in my view I would struggle to see how they could maintain they are unable to plan and follow a route whether familiar or unfamiliar.
Playing devil’s advocate for a moment, if someone has a valid driving licence and does in fact drive, in my view I would struggle to see how they could maintain they are unable to plan and follow a route whether familiar or unfamiliar.
Seen a fair few clients who have a licence and do drive but only do so from A to B e.g. the school run. Anything happens and they are completely thrown. One client wouldn’t go above 30mph all the way. One client wouldn’t turn right. Had to find their way by turning left or coming to a halt.
Have to say I have come across a disproportionate number of WROs who genuinely believe that if you can and do drive then you’re stuffed. Patently untrue as far as I am concerned. Very much depends upon an investigation of the facts.
Playing devil’s advocate for a moment, if someone has a valid driving licence and does in fact drive, in my view I would struggle to see how they could maintain they are unable to plan and follow a route whether familiar or unfamiliar.
The conclusion may be correct; the issue is one of, the evidence has to lead to the conclusion. It doesn’t follow that because someone did something 30 years ago, they can do the same thing now.
30 years ago, I ran the London Marathon, since then, I’ve been on the fat bus eating pies.
Not to mention of course, that anyone who has ever taken a driving test - was on an unfamiliar journey, undergoing overwhelming psychological distress, and being guided round the route by a driving examiner :-)
My sister once drove back from Heathrow to North Wales without once turning right. It can be done.
Incidentally, as someone compelled/condemned to use public transport I have yet to meet any car driver who can plan. Evidence of having passed a test is evidence of pretty much nothing in this context.
I’ve just had a submission through which states:
Educated to GCSE level. Has a degree in Fine Art.
Obviously not a real degree in the eyes of the DWP.
I once had a DLA medical report which stated that the claimant “paints well with one hand”. Went to the tribunal asking them to name the number of two handed painters they knew beyond Mosser and Pollock 😊
“Looks well nourished” about my client who was borderline anorexic and needed to gain 12 kilos to be considered “normal weight”.
Client is awaiting investigations into her weight loss and is under the care of a dietician. She is prescribed nutritional supplements:
‘She displays good insight into her condition and engages with the dietician. It is therefore likely that she is able to take nutrition unaided safely to an acceptable standard as needed for the majority of the time’