Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Does the client meet the criteria for mobility 1f if they need reassurance?
PIP Mobility Descriptor Planning and following journeys 1f states - Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid. 12 points.
My client would not be able to undertake a familiar journey alone because he becomes anxious. However, if he had someone with him, he would be able to follow the route himself. Does he meet the criteria for this descriptor?
Thanks
I always find Activity 11 very wooly, so I looked at the guidance from DWP from ATOS, and it seems that they would assess at 11b Needs prompting to be able to undertake any journey to avoid overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant.
I quote from the DWP guidance
“This descriptor applies to claimants with mental health conditions, where anxiety about going out is a significant feature for example moderate agoraphobia where going out provokes anxiety but is still possible with support. If agoraphobia is severe and the claimant is unable to go out even with support, descriptor 11e may be more appropriate.
‘Prompting’ means reminding, encouraging or explaining by another person.
‘Overwhelming psychological distress’ means a severe anxiety state in which the symptoms are so severe that the person is unable to function. This may occur in conditions such as generalised anxiety disorder, panic disorder and agoraphobia. For example: may apply to claimants who are able to follow the route of their journey themselves, for example they can work out where they need to go, follow directions and deal with unexpected changes in their journey. However, due to their mental health condition or impairment, they become overwhelmed with distress, unless they are prompted by another person. This means they are able to leave the home but are unable to complete any journey, including a short familiar journey,without prompting from another person.”
11b and 11e apply to people with Mental Health conditions and 11c, d and f apply to people with sensory or cognitive impairments.
Thanks for your help. However, guidance is not legally binding. Do you think on the basis of what I have written it would even be worth pursuing 11f at a tribunal?
in a nutshell… yes!
Thanks for your help. However, guidance is not legally binding. Do you think on the basis of what I have written it would even be worth pursuing 11f at a tribunal?
I know it isnt legally binding, just gives you an idea how DWP consider this.
I would argue everything, as guidance is wooly, and I dont know enough about your client, but what they state for 11f is could your client get safely and reliably home if left in a familiar area-if not 11f would apply. It does say that it is “unlikely to apply to people with mental health issues-but doesnt say it wouldn’t. Could be case law in future.
PIP is so new, IMO everything is up for a challenge
Do you think on the basis of what I have written it would even be worth pursuing 11f at a tribunal?
I think it is. The obvious interpretation to me is that ‘follow a route’ is just an updated wording of the old ‘make use of the faculty of walking’, except that it does not necessarily require walking to be the means of making progress along the route - it could be driving or a taxi.
In their original consultation the DWP considered that a claimant who needed supervision outdoors met 11f. The new definition of ‘follow’ seems a bit of a convoluted attempt to replace what they enacted with what they wish they had. It’s not consistent with the use of ‘follow’ in the heading to the activity - ‘planning and following journeys’.
I’ve had a successful go at 11f at Tribunal; the Decision Notice states “is significantly impaired by her mental health condition”.
The Tribunal asked the PO their position and they responded “11b”, as expected.
I’ve had a successful go at 11f at Tribunal; the Decision Notice states “is significantly impaired by her mental health condition”.
The Tribunal asked the PO their position and they responded “11b”, as expected.
What help did the client need in that case? Was it reassurance?
Decision makers love the word “reassurance” as it allows them to fall back on a specific decision oft cited in appeal papers. Tackle this head on by digging into what’s really going on. Claimants rarely magically become capable of a journey because someone is “with” them. That implies it’s about presence but if that were true then ask whether they’d take a young child or their elderly parent to do that. In reality what does the accompanying person do?
It is usually a lot more like active monitoring of their mental state; looking for visual indications of stress; listening to verbal cues that might suggest the same and then intervening to try and counter that. That intervention may be verbal. It could be easily dismissed as reassurance but in fact it is active supervision. It may not be articulated like that by the client or their carer but that’s usually what is unconsciously going on.
Decision makers love the word “reassurance” as it allows them to fall back on a specific decision oft cited in appeal papers. Tackle this head on by digging into what’s really going on. Claimants rarely magically become capable of a journey because someone is “with” them. That implies it’s about presence but if that were true then ask whether they’d take a young child or their elderly parent to do that. In reality what does the accompanying person do?
It is usually a lot more like active monitoring of their mental state; looking for visual indications of stress; listening to verbal cues that might suggest the same and then intervening to try and counter that. That intervention may be verbal. It could be easily dismissed as reassurance but in fact it is active supervision. It may not be articulated like that by the client or their carer but that’s usually what is unconsciously going on.
In my opinion there are two interpretations of 1f)
* Needing someone with you is required, and whether the help is guidance, supervision or reassurance is irrelevant
Or
* Guidance is required and if the client requires supervision or reassurance they do not score the points
I’ve had a successful go at 11f at Tribunal; the Decision Notice states “is significantly impaired by her mental health condition”.
The Tribunal asked the PO their position and they responded “11b”, as expected.
What help did the client need in that case? Was it reassurance?
Yes; reassurance from her mother when driving a familiar route as she “didn’t trust her own judgement even with the sat nav on”.