Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
PIP mobility on mental health grounds
@JoW: does this link get you what you’re asking for?: http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/news/item/minister-for-disabled-people-confirms-support-available-for-those-who-lose . I believe it is just for cases where someone was getting DLA higher rate mobility before losing it on claiming PIP.
Yes - thanks Edmund. My clients weren’t getting DLA. They all got ER Mob Comp on first claims for PIP and all got motability cars. Now, on reassessment, have lost ER Mob Comp due to changes in interpretation of legislation regarding MH and needing assistance from another person. Very unfair.
How’s this for a double bind:
Just received a DWP submission where they claim that points cannot be scored under daily living Activity 9 for problems with coping with people when outside because this ‘is considered in the activity planning and following journeys’.
Apologies if it’s been linked already but I can’t see it anywhere: this is what the 2012 consultation on PIP said about activity 11:-
6.14 Concern was raised that the activity takes insufficient account of the impact of mental health conditions on mobility. We do not consider this the case. Individuals could potentially score in a number of descriptors in the activity if they cannot go outside to commence journeys because of their condition or need prompting or another person to accompany them to make a journey.
Regrading the apparent anomaly of more points being scored for someone who can go out with help than someone who cannot go out at all, the reasoning seems potentially controversial but nevertheless entirely clear:-
6.13 This activity has received numerous comments in relation to the wording ‘overwhelming psychological distress’, with particular reference to why we proposed to award more points for needing support to undertake journeys to familiar locations than where someone cannot undertake journeys because of overwhelming psychological distress. We believe that individuals who are unable to leave their homes as a result of overwhelming psychological distress will face additional costs and barriers and that therefore a high level of points should be awarded in recognition of these extra costs. However, we believe that individuals who can leave their homes but require considerable support to do so, such as needing constant
supervision or to take more journeys by taxi, may face even higher extra costs and barriers, and that this reflects a higher overall level of need. We therefore consider it appropriate to award them higher priority in the benefit
the reasoning seems potentially controversial but nevertheless entirely clear:-
It doesn’t address the controversial issue in the RC vs DA though.
Has anyone else got anything at the UT on that point? I’m waiting for the sec state’s submission on one and quietly hoping I’ll be able to get counsel’s opion.
the reasoning seems potentially controversial but nevertheless entirely clear:-
It doesn’t address the controversial issue in the RC vs DA though.
Has anyone else got anything at the UT on that point? I’m waiting for the sec state’s submission on one and quietly hoping I’ll be able to get counsel’s opion.
Jacobs’s ratio in DA is “I accept the Secretary of State’s argument that descriptor 1d deals with navigation and excludes dealing with other difficulties that may be encountered along the way.” But at 6.10 in the consultation, the Secretary of State specifically gave an assurance that dealing with common difficulties “must be taken into account when considering whether individuals can follow journeys reliably”.
CPIP/313/2015 would appear to be the lead case to sort out the RC v DA dilemma ; mine’s just been stayed.
Any link to details re CPIP/313/2015
Department was given leave to appeal on one of our cases that we won at FTT. And like Dan’s case the Upper Tribunal have just stayed it until CPIP/313/2015 is heard. Does anyone have any information on CPIP/313/2015?
313 has been decided in favour of Jacobs rather than Agnew. On UT site now (sorry can’t post the link from my phone)...
deleted
Oh that IS good news!
...I mean ISN’T good news…. (sorry- misread the last post).
I’m trying to get my head around this point (and the recent decision). My understanding is that 1d can-potentially- apply where a client has mental health issues (rather than a cognitive impairment or some other form of disability) so long as their condition prevents them from navigating an unfamiliar journey (as opposed to struggling to cope en-route due to psychological distress/anxiety, etc). Am I right?
Yes I think that’s exactly it.
“Her fall-back case is that “overwhelming psychological distress” should not be confined to 1b and 1e where it is expressly mentioned, but is capable of belong relevant to a person’s ability to “follow the route”. As noted at [7c], this point is acceded by the Secretary of State and I agree. The question always, though, is whether the ability to “follow the route” in the sense outlined above is impaired by a claimant’s physical or mental condition.”
7C “overwhelming psychological distress could, depending on its nature, frequency, duration and severity make a person unable to navigate and so to fulfil the terms of the relevant descriptor”
Following a route defined as the ability to keep to a particular pathway.
So to score points under 11d/11f via a mental health route, claimant would need to become so anxious/distressed that they get disorientated or confused and wonder off the pathway.