Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

PIP Mobility Activity 1: no lower limb restrictions

Simon Dally
forum member

Welfare benefits team - Manchester District Citizens Advice Bureau

Send message

Total Posts: 8

Joined: 12 July 2011

Hi,

My client applied for PIP and was awarded no points for PIP mobility activity 2. He states that he cannot stand and walk for more than 200 meters, due to the fact that he has spasms in one of his arms, in which he has complete loss of function following an accident.

He was awarded no points for descriptor 2(b) on the basis that “there is no evidence of any lower limb restrictions. You report having to stop due to arm spasms and not due to an issue with your lower limb mobility”.

So does anyone know if points can be awarded for this descriptor, even if the restriction on mobility is not caused by an issue with the lower limbs? I’ve not been able to find any case law on it, but the guidance issued to decision makers appears to confirm that points CAN be awarded for this activity, so long as the cause is physical rather than psychological.

Thanks

Simon

Ros
Administrator

editor, rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 1245

Joined: 6 June 2010

There isn’t a problem with the physical issue not being directly to do with lower limbs - section 79 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 just requires a person’s ability to carry out mobility descriptors to be limited by their physical or mental condition and doesn’t limit it more than that.  For example, a lot of people will get mobility component on the basis of back pain. I guess will just need to be very clear about how the arm spasms affect the ability to walk.

Simon Dally
forum member

Welfare benefits team - Manchester District Citizens Advice Bureau

Send message

Total Posts: 8

Joined: 12 July 2011

Thanks, Ros, much appreciated.

I was just a bit thrown by the decision maker’s explanation, so thought maybe there was some case law on this that I’d missed!

Simon