Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
PIP Descriptor Anomalies
physical or mental function - a physical function would be the actual physical movement of his arm/hand. As like a mental function could be the motivation in which to want to wash and address hygiene needs. On your interpretation anything and everything would be an aid or adaption eg a knife and fork because I am unable to cut up food due to having a weaker stronger hand, a glass of water as this would help me swallow a tablet, a coat hanger as this would allow me to hang my clothes up instead of being unable to bend down to the floor in order to pick them up etc
I’m probably missing the point, but I can’t see why someone who actually has an adapted bath/shower would be unable to get points under “Needs to use an aid or appliance to be able to [get into or out of an unadapted bath or shower].”
I don’t know if we must consider a (Moyna-esque?) hypothetical unadapted bath which we know the claimant does not possess, but I suppose the common-sene approach is that the “need” exists for the majority of the time. The descriptor asks us to consider the claimant when faced with an unadapted bath, not when faced with his own bath, whatever that may be.
Applying the same logic, “cook” is defined as “heat food at or above waist height”. If the claimant actually has an unadapted kitchen where waist-height prep is not possible, that does not assist him to get points, because the descriptor concerns “food at waist height”, not “food in your personal kitchen”.
Incidentally, I think this does suggest another ‘anomaly’ in the PIP assessment: why is cooking to be considered under the assumption that disabled access adaptations have always been installed, while bathing and toilet needs are not? In other words, it seems like the cost of adapting a bathroom is recognised, while the cost of adapting a kitchen is not.
a physical function would be the actual physical movement of his arm/hand.
This analysis seems to say that the activities in the regs are made up of various physical “functions” - building blocks of functions which might each be a simple movement or impulse. However, it seems to me that the PIP (and ESA) regs look at this the other way up, in that they seem to presuppose that the various activities are aspects, or subsets, of “physical function” and/ or of “mental function”.
This is all a bit nebulous, but the upshot, I think, is that an activity such as “washing” can be described as a physical function.
I guess I’m reading the word “function” as “functioning”, though whether that’s helpful or not I don’t know.
(2) C’s ability to carry out an activity is to be assessed –
(a)on the basis of C’s ability whilst wearing or using any aid or appliance which C normally wears or uses; or
.
(b)as if C were wearing or using any aid or appliance which C could reasonably be expected to wear or use.
I wonder if this section is suggesting that an aid/adaption must usually be worn eg a hand brace/support or adapted shoes with raised insoles etc oppose to some object which is merely held eg a toilet brush!
Not getting that at all. It says “wearing or using”.
Summary of CPIP/2168/2015 now also published - http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/caselaw/item/an-ordinary-chair-or-bed-can-constitute-an-aid-for-the-purposes-of-the-pip - chair or bed can be an aid if a claimant needs to sit on it to dress or undress
So there we have it, authority that anything and every thing can be deemed to be an aid or adaption as per CPIP/2168/2015 [2015] UKUT 572 (AAC).
An aid is defined in regulation 2 of the PIP Regulations as ‘any device which improves, provides or replaces an impaired physical or mental function’.
Therefore medication itself could be deemed to be an aid in improving someone’s mental function in that enabling a client to develope the motivation to cook, eat, take medication, wash ,dress, engage with people etc.
An excellent and correct outcome in my view as it reflects what happens in real life where people use anything and everything as an aid or adaptation regardless of its intended function. “What works” is the operative mantra. It’s also very much consistent with the idea of testing functional disability. Whilst it’s not exactly the “social model” I do think it’s a small step in the right direction.
With regards -
2. Moving around.
e. Can stand and then move more than 1 metre but no more than 20 metres, either aided or unaided.
f. Cannot, either aided or unaided, –
(i) stand;
1. In this Schedule, —
“stand” means stand upright
Therefore could anyone who has to use a walking stick or crutches to walk be able to stand “UPRIGHT” from the outset and therefore automatically qualify for the enhanced mobility award under 2E & F!
Even more confused!
4. (2) C’s ability to carry out an activity is to be assessed –
(a)on the basis of C’s ability whilst wearing or using any aid or appliance which C normally wears or uses; or
(b)as if C were wearing or using any aid or appliance which C could reasonably be expected to wear or use.
b. Needs to use an aid or appliance to be able to wash or bathe.
So what exactly is the Regulatory/Statutory test ....is it whether the applicant needs to use the aid or adaption or is it his/her actual ability whilst wearing the said aid or adaption. Is the mere requirement to use an aid or adaption sufficient to score!
To follow on then…
“aid or appliance”-
(a)means any device which improves, provides or replaces C’s impaired physical or mental function;
______________________
8b. Needs to use an aid or appliance, other than spectacles or contact lenses, to be able to read or understand either basic or complex written information.
This descriptor clearly disallows the use of spectacles or contact lenses, however there is no mention of spectacles and contact lenses in 1b,2b(I),4b,5b and 6b. So therefore could you not score with these descriptors by arguing that spectacles and contact lenses are aids as it improves C’s impaired physical function of seeing to cook, wash, dress etc!
Hmmm.
However there is another problem with Activity 8. We recently assisted with form completion for a visually impaired teenager. Using a bar magnifier, and holding reading material very close, he IS able to read written text. What he cannot do is read anything more than 2 metres away, so he cannot, for example, read street signs and bus numbers. He attends a Low Vision Clinic and, for some reason, has not been issued with a monocular. There just doesn’t seem to be a descriptor that covers his situation. Surely he should score more than 2 points for this activity?
I think we’re in severe danger on this thread of micro-analysis meaning the wood and the trees are getting confused.
As for your post Ruth, I think there are a number of considerations:
1) What do you mean by “written text”. Do you mean handwriting or typewritten text? Big difference for a lot of VIs where speed of focus or movement is an issue. That would then bring the “reliably” issue into play.
2) What point size are we talking about?
3) Can he only do the above in perfect light in an opticians or can he do it in all lighting conditions? That would bring “reliably” and possibly “repeatedly” and “reasonable standard” into play.
4) Are we talking basic or complex information? Some VIs are counter intuitively worse with basic information as it lacks delineating things like tables, bullet points and other types of organisation. It can just look like a block of mush. Full justification is the enemy of VI.
5) Low Vision Clinics can prescribe/loan a monocular but vision is about more than distance e.g. light, movement, field of vision, speed of focus and colour and dimensionality. They tend to use functional vision tests so would normally cover the ability to plan a journey or travel. Monoculars can magnify much more than the size of something e.g. light, but simultaneously reduce things like the field of vision. So, there are plenty of scenarios where a monocular may look good on paper but actually not be appropriate.
6) Important to distinguish between read and understand. Being able to strain your eyes to read small text is one thing. Having done that you inevitably believe you have understood it but that isn’t always the case. Few teenagers will openly admit they read something repeatedly and still misread some aspect of it.
7) Why would 8b not apply.
“Needs to use an aid or appliance, other than spectacles or contact lenses, to be able to read or understand either basic or complex written information”
It says “needs” rather than “has” or “uses”.
I’m speaking with my “took 50 years to even discover low vision clinics existed”; “has a monocular which works but not in every situation” and does “VI awareness” sessions head on. It should not be taken to be reliable. As recently as 2 weeks ago I booked tickets for a gig at the Band on The Wall in Manchester, which I thought was ending at 9:45 (club night started straight after). Mrs. H. was not impressed when sat there with her pint to over-hear other punters were expecting the gig to START at 9:45.
With regards -
2. Moving around.
e. Can stand and then move more than 1 metre but no more than 20 metres, either aided or unaided.f. Cannot, either aided or unaided, –
(i) stand;1. In this Schedule, —
“stand” means stand uprightTherefore could anyone who has to use a walking stick or crutches to walk be able to stand “UPRIGHT” from the outset and therefore automatically qualify for the enhanced mobility award under 2E & F!
I tried arguing this at FtT today but unfortunately my argument was not accepted. Please see the following thread: http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/9210/
Re my entry dated 12th May 2015… 1F makes no mention of the need or requirement to use an aid or adaption so anyone who can only cook a simple meal with aids and adaptions are awarded 1B. However 7(1)(b) doesn’t allow for this so again 1B is nothing more than a red hearing!