Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
PIP descriptors-Planning and following journeys
Got a young girl who had a brain injury due to a car crash. Pip decision came through, and she got standard daily living rate and standard moving around. I am arguing both, but can argue to daily living one ok.
However on the planning and following journeys, just need a bit of advice. This girl cannot travel on public transport at all, as she panics, so she either gets taxis or gets a lift anywhere. She panics in a car also (due to car crash), no matter who is driving, and panics in taxis as well. Cos of this she hardly goes out. She only ever goes by taxi to her sisters or her boyfriends
Am a bit unsure what (if any) descriptor would apply here. Thoughts about (b) (d) or (e)?
Even with (b) , it would get her the extra points to get her on enhanced mobility as she got 10 on the moving around part
Thanks in advance
I think that no one really knows yet. Though I’d be happy to be proved wrong here!
The ‘planning and following a journey’ descriptors are very unclear and poorly written and until we have some case law on what they mean or should mean it is anyone’s guess.
And I’ve found that the DWP have been very inconstant in how they have applied these descriptors, so I don’t think they know either.
If she doesn’t go out on her own I would argue (f). If she does some familiar trips on her own I would argue (d).
The most confusing thing I find is the difference between (e) and (f). I can’t think of a situation where it would be possible to satisfy (e) and not (f) - what’s the point of (f)?
Jane
I think that no one really knows yet. Though I’d be happy to be proved wrong here!
The ‘planning and following a journey’ descriptors are very unclear and poorly written and until we have some case law on what they mean or should mean it is anyone’s guess.
And I’ve found that the DWP have been very inconstant in how they have applied these descriptors, so I don’t think they know either.
If she doesn’t go out on her own I would argue (f). If she does some familiar trips on her own I would argue (d).
The most confusing thing I find is the difference between (e) and (f). I can’t think of a situation where it would be possible to satisfy (e) and not (f) - what’s the point of (f)?
Jane
11e refers specifically to psychological distress whereas 11f pertains to a broader range of disabilities (sight impairment etc.). e states that the clmt ‘cannot undertake any journey’ whereas f states that the clmt needs another person (aid, dog etc) to make journey.
Presumably to avoid paying ERMOB to those without any sort of physical mobility problems?
Hijacking the thread slightly but what’s more baffling to me is 12e and f.
Only reason I can think of for 12f being there is so that 12e can be pulled out of the regs after migration just leaving the more severe of the two for future claimants…
In response to OP, in circs you describe I’d certainly be arguing (b) with maybe a statement from sister/boyfriend stating what sort of prompting/frequency/effect of prompting etc. and depending on severity/circs, as Jane OP says arguing (e) or (f)
“A person should only be considered able to follow an unfamiliar journey if they are capable of using public transport (bus or train).”
On the facts in the original post I’m not sure about being able to “follow the route” being the problem. If she panics whilst getting a lift in a taxi etc. then it’s surely the driver following the journey not her. Her knowledge of where in the journey she is at any given moment might be relevant to the state of her health (panicking if she thinks she’s lost etc.) but is not relevant to her ability to complete the journey, which is dependent upon someone else.
Would be different on a bus where you would need either massive driver co-operation, which is obviously variable or to have some means of following the route.
B clearly applies as the bare minimum but, as she can’t use public transport, she can’t ever “follow an unfamiliar journey” and therefore scores on D. I can’t see how E applies at all. She undertakes journeys even knowing they will cause distress. Similarly with F. As she only goes in taxis and cars driven by other people who will presumably know the end point of the journey then, even if she has a huge panic attack, she doesn’t need to “follow” the route/journey or any aspect of it.
Much to be tested in this area as has been observed.
I want a case to test “orientation aids” based on the definition of “... specialist aids designed to assist disabled people in following a route.”. This is based on such a fundamental misunderstanding of such aids that I’m embarrassed for them.
What is a “specialist aid”? Most are devices using technology derived from everyday life and most can be incorporated elsewhere e.g. a magnifying glass; a monocular; text to speech software; a torch. So, the main monocular recommended by low vision assessors at present is primarily used for… bird-watching. It’s technology can often be found, albeit somewhat clunkily, in the camera on your smartphone. In fact, I’d challenge someone to find an assistive technology that has yet to be incorporated into a smartphone.
So, if it’s an ordinary everyday item ideal for use by a disabled person is it a “specialist aid”? If a disabled person has the same functionality within their smartphone does it cease to be a “specialist aid”?
Effectively most assistive technology isn’t really specialist in any sense and the law has been drafted based on a fallacy.
Got a PIP Tribunal today - woman with B-polar who got zero points on activity 11 (or activity 1 of mobility, whatever you want to call it). I’m sure she’d have got lower-rate mobility DLA, but the “registered nurse” who did the medical and the decision maker (neither of whom bothered to obtain any further medical evidence) said she could do an unfamiliar journey on her own, albeit with some stress, and said in justification that “there is no evidence of cognitive impairment or learning disability”. (There’s nothing in the PIP Reg.s to say you have to have a cognitive impairment or learning disability.)
So it’s “Pull yourself together, depressed and anxious people!” from the DWP, just like with ESA. Will update later today, hopefully.
Unfortunately, the tribunal I mentioned has been cancelled as the Doctor Tribunal Member is ill, so we’ll have to wait.
Which activity were you going for?