Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Third of claimants lost mobility component on transfer to PIP from DLA
Written answer yesterday states that -
Of the 355,700 claimants that received the mobility component under DLA and were reassessed for PIP during this period, 67% also received it under PIP.
The miraculous powers of ATOS assessors are highlighted again. 33% of those formerly unable to walk are now cured.
Surely ATOS should be recommended to the Catholic Church for beatification.
Not necessarily. I sometimes give the DWP credit for some stats. It could well be that with DLA the Higher Mobility rate was given if they had difficulty walking up to 50 metres.
For PIP that distance was reduced to 20 metres.
Consequently those assessed that could only walk between 21 metres and 50 metres would see the mobility element reduced to Standard.
The other side of this is that a number of people now qualify for standard rate mobility or higher who struggled to get lower rate mobility.
Not necessarily. I sometimes give the DWP credit for some stats. It could well be that with DLA the Higher Mobility rate was given if they had difficulty walking up to 50 metres.
For PIP that distance was reduced to 20 metres.Consequently those assessed that could only walk between 21 metres and 50 metres would see the mobility element reduced to Standard.
There was not a “PIP Regulation 4” type of test under DLA. I am seeing recipients of PIP under review having their Mobility award reduced. I believe there is a hidden government agenda to reduce the number of claimants eligible to lease a car by virtue of the Motability scheme! An estimated 75% of claimants are not being awarded ERM of PIP in my experience.
If a person was deemed to qualify for DLA HRM and has their award reduced or taken away. I argue regulation 4 and cite CPIP/0665/2016, Judge Marcus’ ratio, which is more often than not successful at Tribunal.
I submit a Tribunal must apply common sense. It is a nonsense to find a claimant can walk between 20 and 50 metres stop for a minute then walk another 20-5 0 stop and walk another20-50 etc. Once the pain/breathlessness causes a claimant to stop and rest for 30-60 seconds, when they begin again they walk a much shorter distance than previously. At most 20 metres, ergo regulation 4 repeatability is applicable but not only this Marcus J held in CPIP/0665/2016 that walking with pain and/or breathlessness is not walking to an acceptable standard. Therefore, Reg 4 is applicable and then the time it takes (including the stops) is relevant.
If my client has a heart condition and/or COPD, I argue also it is unsafe for him/her to carry on, once the breathlessness arises and they have attempted to walk the distance twice, in some cases just once.
One final point CPIP/1559/2016 paragraph 55 & 56, held that regulation 7, majority of the time has no part to play in regulation 4.
“55. As is clear from our analysis, regulation 7 has no part to play in the construction of regulation 4(2A) and (4). Indeed Mr Komorowski did not rely on regulation 7 in response to these appeals. He correctly accepted that if, for the majority of days, a claimant is unable to carry out an activity safely or requires supervision to do so, then the relevant descriptor applies. On a correct analysis, as we have determined, that may be so even though the harmful event or the event which triggers the risk actually occurs on less than 50% of the day“
What do others think about the application of Reg 4 by HCPs, DMs and more importantly tribunals? When I argue only one of the Reg 4 conditions needs to be fulfilled for a claimant to fail the test and become entitled, DMs and some tribunals fail to get this. Obviously, the DWP wants DMs to decide claims in this way but tribunals!
[ Edited: 16 Jul 2018 at 10:12 pm by Terry Craven ]
I think the need for an activity to be carried out safely, repeatedly & in a reasonable time frame is consistently ignored by the DWP, the medical assessors & quite often the tribunals. This is particularly pertinent to mobility, where normally a person would walk 20 metres or more many, many times each day, but this does not seem to be considered in most cases.
I believe there is a hidden government agenda to reduce the number of claimants eligible to lease a car by virtue of the Motability scheme!
I don’t know if I’d say it’s a hidden agenda.
I’d say it’s as blatant as their contempt for the sick, poor and vulnerable! The government has made no secret of its disdain for social security recipients and peddling the message DLA is “not fit for purpose”, whilst purposefully allowing AA and child DLA to continue - clearly going after children and the elderly would not be a vote winner.