Planning and following journeys

I am helping someone appeal the mobility component for PIP.  She was receiving DLA and has a motability car but has now only scored 4 points for moving around and nothing for planning and following journey. 

The decision maker has stated that the planning and following journeys was designed to assess the barriers claimants may face that are associated with mental, cognitive or sensory ability.  This lady could not use public transport on her own due to poor mobility and balance and when out walks with a stick but also needs someone with her.  She drives to her sister’s but would not be able to get a bus there and now she has lost her car would be housebound. 

Would she satisfy descriptor 1d or 1f even though she does not have sensory impairment.

If her need to have someone with her is for balance ie. to stop her physically falling or for reassurance, I don’t think she would fit 1d or 1f. As you say, she has no sensory impairment and presumably has no cognitive or mental impairment so everything rests on her walking ability. You could argue that she may be able to go between 50 and 200 metres but cannot do it safely/to an acceptable standard/in timely fashion/repeatedly due to balance issues and might therefore only be able to walk a few steps or less than 20 metres reliably.

There is a stock phrase which comes up in MRs and appeal submissions that the “person” referred to in descriptors 1d and 1f must be involved in “actively navigating” in order to count. This is an approach which the Upper Tribunal adopted in some early cases.

However one of the matters which was addressed by the panel in MH v SSWP (PIP) [2016] UKUT 531 (AAC) was whether this was the correct approach. The relevant paragraphs are 36 and 37. The panel appear to conclude that the process of “following a route” is not simply having the ability to navigate a route, but instead refers to the entire process of getting from A to B.

On this basis, it seems open to a Tribunal to conclude that somebody who needs somebody with them to follow a journey to ensure their own physical safety could satisfy 1d or 1f.

This sort of argument mainly comes up in relation to people with uncontrolled epilepsy or similar. It could cover somebody with poor balance but I would expect it would take a very severe case to persuade a Tribunal that the involvement of another person was necessary to complete the activity safely.