Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
PIP Mobility and ther Blue Badge
Not sure whether it is the same around the Country, but here in Hampshire I have stumbled an unexpected problem with PIP appeals and the Blue Badge scheme.
Customer refused PIP so took the case too appeal, the appeal dealt with the Daily Living first , then the Mobility as per the running order of the regs./ descriptors.
So looking at the Mobility the Tribunal stopped after awarding 12pts for Planning and following a journey, in section 1 the Mobility descriptors, so nothing awarded for section 2 Moving Around as they had sufficient points to award the Enhanced Mobility without addressing the descriptors in section2.
With this in mind, and DLA mind set, Blue badge applied for and refused, the new rules on Blue Badges states, HR DLA Mob badge awarded, but PIP mobility they must be awarded points which show they cannot walk more than 50m. So they need to score 8pts or more in the Mobility section 2 of the descriptors.
If the customer gets a successful claim all the allocated points are in the decision letter no problem and if awarded are you going to appeal for a blue badge, but at tribunal we need to ask the Tribunal to rearrange the running order of the descriptors, though I suggest some Judges will not be happy with this.
I would be interested in other peoples experiences or points of view.
A tribunal are supposed to consider all issues raised in the appeal, so if it was apparent from the appeal papers, or from what the claimant or rep said, that the claimant has difficulty with the activity of moving around then the tribunal should have considered this. It shouldn’t be necessary to “rearrange the order” of the activities, because they should be considering all activities/descriptors raised in the appeal.
If a claimant says they have difficulty moving around the tribunal should not apply a zero-point descriptor without making findings of fact on walking distance etc and giving reasons for their decision; if they give a zero score on the basis that the claimant already has enough points elsewhere that is an error of law.
However as this claimant’s PIP award is now ‘in the bag’ I agree with Jol’s suggestion that it’s better to pursue a Blue Badge on grounds of having a substantial disability which causes very considerable difficulty in walking.
No it is not they gave a zero score , they never considered it as we already had 12pts in the bag so to speak, and case law in ICB and ESa has said this is fine once the thresh hold is achieved the tribunal need look no further, though we will look at the other criteria for the Blue Badge.
I have recently been advised by clients that they have been awarded the PIP enhanced mobility component via the cognitive, planning, executing a journey etc
My clients are informing me that on applying for the blue badge to be renewed, they are being refused by the local authority on the grounds that they do not meet the criteria as they are deemed physically able to walk and will only award a blue badge, when the PIP enhanced mobility is awarded for physical activity and not cognitive.
I wasn’t sure if this was something that was only happening locally? or more of a national problem.
Any advice, gratefully received
Thanks
In Wales if you are awarded descriptor f for planning and following a journey ie can’t in familiar places then that entitles you to a blue badge - not sure about the situation back over the bridge
edited to say Sorry didn’t read earlier in thread where this was already said
.
I wasn’t sure if this was something that was only happening locally? or more of a national problem.
It’s national. The criteria for awarding a Blue Badge in England is:
People who may be issued with a badge without further assessment are those who are more than two years old and fall within one or more of the following descriptions:
• Receives the Higher Rate of the Mobility Component of the Disability Living Allowance (HRMCDLA); or
• Receives 8 points or more under the “moving around” activity of the mobility component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP); or
• Is registered blind (severely sight impaired); or
• Receives a War Pensioner’s Mobility Supplement (WPMS); or
• Has been both awarded a lump sum benefit at tariffs 1-8 of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and certified as having a permanent and substantial disability which causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
People who may be issued with a badge after further assessment are those who are more than two years old and fall within one or more of the following descriptions:
• Drives a vehicle regularly, has a severe disability in both arms and is unable to operate, or has considerable difficulty in operating, all or some types of parking meter; or
• Has a permanent and substantial disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
In addition, children under the age of three may be eligible for a badge if they fall within either or both of the following descriptions:
• A child who, on account of a condition, must always be accompanied by bulky medical equipment which cannot be carried around with the child without great difficulty;
• A child who, on account of a condition, must always be kept near a motor vehicle so that, if necessary, treatment for that condition can be given in the vehicle or the child can be taken quickly in the vehicle to a place where such treatment can be given.
Local authorities should note that, from 1 April 2012, legislation3 prescribes that the eligibility of those applying because of a “permanent and substantial disability that causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking” (regulation 4(2)(f) of the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000 be confirmed by an independent mobility assessor.
I disagree with the idea that a tribunal stops when the threshold is reached. This is relevant here but it is going to continue to be relevant on all PIP cases. The attempt to remove aids and appliances points through using incomplete statistics is not going to go away just because IDS has gone and highlights the importance of getting this right. My understanding from several sources is that Crabb et al are minded to set ER at 15 pts and SR at 10 but are continuing to explore other equally draconian possibilities.
Recently had a conversion client who was never going to get anything but ER M and ER DL. However, initial award was only for 2 years so we challenged on MR. We also challenged the award of DL 1b when 1e was also applicable.
MR resulted in 2 year award suddenly blooming into a nice 10 years. Nothing moved on DL. Appealed.
Clt. gets 2 calls.
1 - “You do know that you’ll get nothing extra if you win don’t you? No point in appealing etc.” Response from clt. was exactly as one would hope.
2 - “Looked at it again. Don’t want it to go to appeal. Extra 2 points awarded.”
Down the line those 2 points may well be critical.
Why would those 2 points be critical down the line Mike, they only apply to the existing award? Unless I am misunderstanding you, surely any changes to the points threshold would not be applied retrospectively but for new or reassessed claims only? So it would only matter when your client is reassessed in 10 years time by when all manner of things could have changed with their functional ability, medical and technological advances, etc. It would open a whole can of legal worms if they tried to retrospectively legislate people’s existing awards away, not least in the kind of scenario described in the OP.
Are you able to say where the rumours about 15/10 points have come from?
The points matter because of
a) interventions.
b) renewals which end up going all the way to tribunal with the inevitable argument along the lines of “if you’re arguing for that now and you say nothing has changed then why didn’t you argue for it then?”.
In this case there is no possibility of change other than deterioration. 2 year award was ludicrous, as are most in my view, and the 2 points should have been awarded. Call it a point of principle if you like. To me, it was simply getting, as DWP would put it, the right award to the right person at the right time!
And no I cannot, but suffice to say that there are enough DWP related blogs out there, including those written by DWP staff at the front end of policy design, IT etc. that it’s not going to be too difficult for most people to figure out before long. I also know some people working in DWP who have been asked for stats along the lines of “what would the numbers affected be if…”.
My inclination is that, legally speaking, the points are just a stepping stone to a finding of severely limited/limited/not limited ability. They have no life of their own so to speak. If the Tribunal thinks they can award enough points to award benefit, they can stop looking for more points. The fact that another unrelated scheme looks at the points awarded in reaching its own decision has practical, but not legal implications.
That said, if the Tribunal is directly asked to find on mobility 2 because the claimant is anxious about their blue badge, I like to imagine that would usually be indulged.
Have lost count of the number of tribunals this has been an issue at. Same happens with ESA. Have vivid nightmares about specific judges and their whole “lack of credibility” argument when you ask for points that should have been awarded last time around for a functional issue which clearly existed all along. “You have the right to insist” as one FT judge put it. If only his colleagues knew that.
If I remember correctly there is a Commissioners/ UT somewhere which says it was OK to stop in ICB or ESA cases, if nothing more was in question.
Therefore depends on how one wants to interpret “if nothing more was in question”. I know the caselaw exists. It may even be an accurate summary of the law as is. Does it make sense when one looks at the “claimant journey” and the practicalities of renewals and so on? Not a bit.
Having had this discussion with a few tribunals it pleases me no end when a tribunal comes back and awards, for example, 38 points.
First of all that’s an accurate decision whereas an award on the back of a hearing which stops at 8, 12 or 15 may be legally correct but is patently incomplete. It emphasises the sheer impact of the specific condition(s) and makes it considerably harder for a HCP and decision maker to (credibly) make an argument for no subsequent award. It fits far better with the policy intents than stopping at a threshold ever will.
It’s a bit like a WRO who completes a DLA claim pack and then scans and uploads only those pages they deem to be relevant. How do you know the GP or bank details won’t be relevant further down the line. Same as omitting the household makeup pages for IS in favour of only those detailing capital/income. When that living together overpayment decision comes through 5 years down the line it’s all too clear in retrospect that knowing what was declared at the time was actually relevant. Ditto getting the totality of the points right.
“But your client scored nothing for dressing last time out Mr. Hughes!”
“Er actually they scored 4 points but as the tribunal stopped at 12…”
“And your proof of your assertion is?”
Good question isn’t it!