Ministers forced to backtrack over controversial Personal Independence
Agreed. Given that we are looking for ‘a real possibility which cannot be ignored of harm occurring’ etc, I’d say that the majority of examples in the ADM memo look unlawful.[ Edited: 14 Nov 2017 at 10:45 pm by WillH ]
Restricting someone to two points for cooking effectively removes them from qualifying for benefit on supervision needs alone (unless you can bring in toilet needs, which must be a harder sell than cooking).
I have no doubt the intention of this guidance is to appear to give effect to RJ but without actually doing so.
Edit: Not a single one of their examples qualified for benefit. Surely this can’t be the intention of RJ?[ Edited: 16 Nov 2017 at 06:28 pm by Mr Finch ]
Written Commons answer from Sarah Newton yesterday says the DWP is to begin ‘testing’ review process for existing awards, and decisions refusing PIP from 9 March 2017, from 20 November -
Just seen a case today - claimant with regular seizures, bruises to show it - 2 points for a microwave. He won’t go near a microwave unsupervised..
The decision claims they have taken into account RJ and the new guidance.
As well as appealing, does anyone have a view on seeking JR of the guidance?