Drives a car so cannot be disabled

This is an argument as old as dirt. The ability to drive a car is potentially probative of ability in other areas but it is insufficient simply to say that you can drive a car and therefore can do X where X is something other than driving a car. It is one of a number of factors to consider. See also (a) having recently been on holiday and (b) a PIP claimant having a job.

See:
https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/10229/
https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/13377/
https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/16343/

etc.

There are various permutations of the DWP’s Response in a spreadsheet of stock Resonses that has been provided for submission writers e.g

“It is noted that the appellant drives a car. The activity of driving a car is in itself a multi-tasking activity requiring significant physical function in terms of grip, power and upper and lower joint movements in conjunction with substantial cognitive powers of thought, perception, memory, reasoning, concentration, judgement and co-ordination entirely consistent with the Decision Maker’s decision.

It is considered that if the appellant’s functioning was as affected as claimed then they would not be fit to drive and would be a severe danger on the road. There is no evidence to suggest that DVLA have been informed of such.”

[Title] [Surname] drives a car. To drive [Title] [Surname] uses grip, power and upper and lower joint movements as well as memory, reasoning, concentration, judgement and co-ordination. These abilities are consistent with the Decision Maker’s decision.

[Title] [Surname] drives a car (page [number]). To drive, [he she] uses significant physical and cognitive function including grip, power and upper and lower joint movements as well as memory, reasoning, concentration, judgement and co-ordination. If [Title] [Surname]‘s functional ability was as limited as claimed, [he she] would be unfit to drive according to DVLA guidelines. [His Her] ability to drive indicates [he she] can complete a multi-tasking activity in line with the descriptors chosen by the Decision Maker

The arguments have been considered by the former Commisioners and by the Upper Tribunal in CDLA/1572/2005, CDLA/722/2012 and SB v SSWP (PIP) [2019] UKUT 274 (AAC)

Thanks for pointing out they are stock replies: I have seen the top one a few times. The thing about probative value is that it is not really arise from a simple observation but from a full description of what is actually happening in someone’s life: pain, variability, for some people with Autism an activity governed by ambiguity free rules etc and how long the person can drive for. Simply having and using a car seems to have little probative value.

Also of course driving a car is like doing the laundry, cleaning the living room or knitting a jumper in that it is not a descriptor activity for PIP…

Plenty of case law summaries on this at https://pipinfo.net/.

Fairly pathetic that DWP still try this.

This is something I see consistently. As other people have said hcp make sweeping generalisations about what skills, level of competence can be assumed from being able to drive.

Do we or should we have a stock level of responses?

A new one to me received last week was that as the client can wipe themselves (toilet), this shows an adequate level of power and grip!!!

See the Stainsby documents above.

That aside, I have a two pronged approach to this:

1 - where I can, I tackle such stuff head on in anticipation in a PIP 2 etc.
2 - training clients to understand why certain things will be asked and the relevant points to emphasise.

I consider 2 to be as important as 1 if not more so. Where clients are capable of tackling such issues I have found that giving them the knowledge and tools to do so is highly effective. It’s especially nice when that comes to fruition at an appeal hearing where the appellant, confronted by the DQM or medical professional about their driving or whatever, is able to leap in there and describe in vivid detail exactly what they told the HCP and exactly which bits of it the HCP failed to take into account or pretend had not been said.