Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

mobility 1e v 1f

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1282

Joined: 22 July 2013

Client was awarded 1f after MR. Award was reviewed and downgraded to 1e on the basis that she has a diagnosis of agoraphobia, only goes out twice a month and has to hold her mum’s hand whilst doing so. Therefore for the majority of the time she satisfies 1e.

Given what MH v SSWP says about the relationship between 1e and 1f, what factors do you think would give a reasonable prospect of winning an appeal for 1f?

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1282

Joined: 22 July 2013

i would like to revisit this as we now have an appeal date.

MH says that where descriptor 1(e) was satisfied because the claimant needed to avoid overwhelming psychological distress by not undertaking any journey, the claimant would not undertake journeys so that the need for consideration of descriptor 1(f) owing to such severe anxiety on a journey would not arise (paragraph 41). Which I see as a bit of a problem for my client’s appeal. However, she does undertake some journeys, always accompanied and often holding her mother’s hand.

In my experience, Tribunals (rightly or wrongly) take a slightly different view of Reg 4 and the reliability criteria when assessing Mob 1 than they do of other descriptors. If someone is able to follow a journey unaccompanied every so often, that tends to result in no award even though it may not be the majority of the time, or safely as far as their mental health is concerned. If you turn this around, then the fact that they can make some jouneys accompanied, should bring them within 1F, even if it is not for the majority of the time/safely.

I am struggling to coherently put this into a submission (and I don’t really like the premise of it either, as it is basically saying to Tribunals that they usually get this wrong so in this case should get it wrong in favour of my client). But I am a bit stuck with where else to go with it.

Has anyone got any experience/thoughts on this?

[ Edited: 3 Mar 2021 at 04:39 pm by BC Welfare Rights ]
Va1der
forum member

Welfare Support Worker - Community Renewal Edinburgh

Send message

Total Posts: 401

Joined: 7 May 2019

I find the grounds cited in the High Court judgement to quash the amended PIP regs useful: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2017/3375.html

It’s a difficult argument to make in a submission purely because the wording in the descriptor is idiotic. DWP put e) at 10 points because they thought the financial burden of staying home 100% of the time would be less, abandoning any regard for what constitutes a greater burden on living.