× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

PIP Planning and Following Journeys

AnneBL
forum member

Citizens Advice Northumberland (Alnwick Office)

Send message

Total Posts: 1

Joined: 4 July 2016

Hello, this is my first post; here goes:

My client has a mild learning disability; she has been awarded 6 points for PIP DL and 10 for PIP Mob. The 10 Mob points were for 1.D. She manages to go on public transport for familiar journeys because she has learned the landmarks along the way.

I wondered if there is any case law re. qualifying for 1.F where if something unusual happens on a familiar journey e.g. a landmark is no longer there, or the bus breaks down or takes a different route or the client gets off at the wrong stop by mistake, which then necessitates assistance from someone else.

Many thanks in advance!

Brian JB
forum member

Advisor - Wirral Welfare Rights Unit, Birkenhead

Send message

Total Posts: 472

Joined: 18 June 2010

From MH v SSWP (PIP) [2016] UKUT 0531 (AAC) -

38. Nonetheless, we agree with Judge Jacobs’ conclusion in DA that the claimant’s inability to engage in communication with people so as to find her way if lost was irrelevant to the issue of whether she could follow the route of a journey.  A liability to get lost due to his or her physical or mental condition is clearly relevant to whether a claimant can follow the route of a journey for the purpose of descriptors 1d and 1f, but otherwise the risk of getting lost and any consequential need to ask for directions is not material to the satisfaction of those descriptors.  Moreover, once lost, a person has ceased to follow the route of the journey and obtaining directions for a new route, whether or not it leads back to the original route, is not itself part of following a route.  We note that the question whether the claimant in DA needed to be accompanied because of her general anxiety and so whether any such need was relevant to her ability to follow the route of a journey was not before the Upper Tribunal due to the adverse finding made by the First-tier Tribunal. 

39. It was common ground before us that Judge Ward was correct to hold in HL that navigating around road works or the effects of an accident was part of being able to follow the route of a journey.  We were referred to paragraph 6.10 of the consultation response and we agree with Judge Ward on this issue. 

I don’t know if this answers your query, but it is the lead case on what is meant by “follow the route of a journey” - a link to the full decision is on the PIP INFO part of the site

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

So, how does she cope with diversions; night time when those landmarks would not necessarily be clear? Have those things happened?

Additional to that one has to remember that there is an overall picture to be assessed not just one aspect. So, what are these familiar journeys and how often do they occur? Is she able to undertake familiar journeys on foot in a similar manner? Can she undertake any unfamiliar journey on foot? What would she need to enable her to do that?

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

Brian JB - 13 March 2018 10:55 AM

From MH v SSWP (PIP) [2016] UKUT 0531 (AAC) -
I don’t know if this answers your query, but it is the lead case on what is meant by “follow the route of a journey” - a link to the full decision is on the PIP INFO part of the site

Here’s the relevant page of pipinfo - https://pipinfo.net/activities/planning-and-following-journeys

The DWPguidance linked to there - https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/pip_guidance_nov_2017_11.pdf - says -

The route has already been planned. Any significant diversions from that route are therefore irrelevant – it is no longer the planned route. However, making one’s way around road works, or a change of train platform (i.e. minor diversions) are part of being able to follow the route of a journey.

The descriptor refers to “a familiar journey” rather than “any familiar journey”. Accordingly, claimants can satisfy the descriptor by showing that they typically need to be accompanied by another person or an assistance dog or to use an
orientation aid on the majority of days when undertaking familiar journeys (it’s not necessary to show that they need such support for every possible familiar journey on most days).

I think this supports your case - if something goes a bit wrong then your client won’t be able to manage.

And, as Mike says, can she do a familiar journey on foot?

[ Edited: 13 Mar 2018 at 01:08 pm by Daphne ]
AnneBL
forum member

Citizens Advice Northumberland (Alnwick Office)

Send message

Total Posts: 1

Joined: 4 July 2016

Many thanks for your very helpful replies.

In answer to your questions: my client walks or travels by bus on short journeys alone at least once a week during daylight hours; she doesn’t go out alone after dark. For all familiar journeys she has been taught the landmarks to watch out for along the way, which reassure her as well as keeping her on the right route. When something has gone wrong in the past she has become very anxious and panicky. Typically she initially stutters and struggles to get her words out, but once she feels reassured that someone will help her, she manages to communicate what the problem is and in the past she has been successfully assisted by other people, such as bus drivers, to complete her journey. She does not undertake unfamiliar routes alone as anxiety overwhelms her and therefore prevents her from doing this.

On reflection, I’m not sure whether 1.F can be awarded in this case. Anyway, we’ll give it a shot and see what comes back.

Thanks again for your responses; much appreciated.

AlexJ
forum member

Trafford Welfare Rights

Send message

Total Posts: 178

Joined: 4 July 2016

It was held in CPIP/2054/2015 that ‘for a descriptor to apply, on a given day, then the inability to perform the task or function must be of some significance, that is to say something which is more than trifling or, put another way, something which has some tangible impact upon a claimant’s activity and functioning during a day but not more than that’ (paragraph 32). It was implied in this decision that this consideration is essentially part of the test of repeatability set out in regulations 4(2A) and (4).

The case concerned a claimant with poor eyesight, who was able to venture out of doors during daylight unaccompanied, but during the hours of dusk and darkness could not go out alone. It was held that this difficulty with going out for only part of the day was sufficient for her to satisfy a mobility descriptor on that day.

Perhaps this case will be useful in arguing that your client satisfies 1(f) as she can’t go out at all on her own during the hours of darkness ?