Cannot…at all?

The third generation PIP descriptors seem to vary in the intended use of the word ‘cannot’. Daily Living Activities 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 have an ‘at all’ caveat, whereas Activities 1, 2, 9 11 and both the Mobility Activities do not. Having ‘at all’ would appear to be a way of denying points to those can do things sometimes, but not others etc. I do not know the intended reason why some Activities are free of this restriction, and others are not. Do you?

The recent draft PIP amendment regs introduce requirements that a claimant’s ability should be judged by whether they can do something ‘safely’ and ‘repeatedly’ and so on. Do colleagues have any views about how these new requirements will interact with the ‘at all’ caveats referred to above?

For example, does it mean that if you can’t do something ‘repeatedly’, then although you can do it, overall, you can’t do it ‘at all’?!?

My point exactly. The ‘at all’ seems to invalidate the new reliability requirements of safety and repeatability etc. The PIP Assessment Guide makes it clear that these new requirements apply to ALL the Activities, and the new draft regs do not say they only apply to those Activities that do not have ‘at all’...

If so, then that is something of disaster for anyone with variable or repeatability problems trying to get maximum points from 5 out of the 12 PIP Activities. The relevant period of assessment in PIP is 12 months. If you are right, and we must disengage issues of safety etc when ‘at all’ applies to a Descriptor, then anyone who can do something even only once a year, albeit in great pain or with significant risk to themselves, would be debarred from maximum points. That does not feel right, given the weight of sickness/disability case law where judges have said we should ignore ability that puts us at risk - but possibly that is the point of ‘at all’.

Maybe I am naive, but that seems like madness. Why does PIP need ‘at all’, if ESA does not?

Steve

So ‘at all’ does not mean ‘at all’!

Not sure I am explaining myself adequately. My basic question is, when the DWP are assessing the ‘at all’ Descriptors against clients abilities, will they or will they not have to take into account ‘safety, ‘repeatability’ etc? If the answer is yes, then ‘at all’ really means ‘at all, to the extend that you can do it even once safely and reliably’ and so on.

I am not sure from your overall responses where you stand (sorry!). Begining to lose track where I stand, for that matter…

And you’ve b****y well lost me completely!

Make mine a Guiness

Ah yes!  It’ll soon be time for several pints of real ale.

To put it another way, (and quoting from a possible interpretation in an email from Tom from Ferret), is one of the impacts of the new amending PIP regulation that ‘cannot… at all’ should actually be read as ‘cannot… RELIABLY at all’?

Irrespective of the debate, I think we may all share a fear that ATOS et all will read ‘at all’ in absolute terms. If claimants ever get to be told the criteria by which they being judged (shock!) I suspect some claimants will also read ‘at all’ in absolute terms. In my view, that will only help increase the rate of self-denial of PIP.

I have been looking at it some more as well.

Reason to be cheerful number 1…

The wording of the amending PIP regulation is comfortingly inclusive…
“(4) Where C’s ability to carry out an activity is assessed, C is to be assessed as satisfying a descriptor set out in column 2 of the table in Part 2 or 3, as the case may be, of Schedule 1 only if C can do so… (a) safely;  (b) to an acceptable standard; (c) repeatedly; and (d) in a reasonable time period.

(therefore applying to all descriptors – Steve)

(5) In this regulation – (a) “safely” means in a manner unlikely to cause harm to C or to another person, either during or after completion of the activity; and (b) “repeatedly” means as often as the activity being assessed is reasonably required to be completed.”

Reason to be cheerful number 2…

From the PIP Assessment Guide…

“3.3.1 Central to the application of all the activities within the PIP assessment is a consideration of the manner in which they are undertaken. If an individual cannot reliably complete an activity in the way described then they should be considered unable to complete it…”

(So no distinction between the ‘at all’ and ‘non-at all’ descriptors – Steve)

Reason NOT to be so cheerful…

Again from the PIP Assessment Guide…

“3.3.18. Where the descriptor refers to the individual being unable to complete the activity, issues of reliability do not apply…”

Which kind of takes us back to your original view Tony!

No doubt case law will resolve.

Steve