Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
So what descriptor would that be???
Client on long term DLA low rate mobility and middle rate care.
migration to PIP at SRDL…..NO mobility.
Given 4 points for requiring prompting. DESCRIPTOR 1B
Result of MR just in…...
“I agree you need someone with you to avoid overwhelming psychological distress therefore the choosen descriptor is correct” Decision therefore unchanged.
Would folk not agree with me that the descriptor satisfied is (at a minimum ) 1D?????
Have a look at CPIP/313/2015
Client on long term DLA low rate mobility and middle rate care.
migration to PIP at SRDL…..NO mobility.
Given 4 points for requiring prompting. DESCRIPTOR 1BResult of MR just in…...
“I agree you need someone with you to avoid overwhelming psychological distress therefore the choosen descriptor is correct” Decision therefore unchanged.Would folk not agree with me that the descriptor satisfied is (at a minimum ) 1D?????
No
Thing is, though, I would really question whether someone who experiences ‘overwhelming psychological distress’ when forced to travel outdoors unaccompanied would be capable of safely (reliably, repeatedly and within a reasonable timescale) navigating to their destination. I know that where someone has a mental illness it’s going to be on a case by case basis as to whether they are likely to be capable of navigating a journey (and would suggest we don’t know enough about Neilcoll’s client to make that judgement) but I still think this whole issue has a ways to run.
In the decision to which Daphne has provded a link above, the Upper Tribunal Judge accepted the submission made in that case on behalf of the S of S, that -
“overwhelming psycological distress could, depending on its nature, frequency, duration and severity make a person unable to navigate and so to fulfill the terms of the relevant descriptor” (paragraph 7, endorsed at paragraph 38)
As 1964 says, it is a case by case basis, but does raise (even more) interesting issues on how the whole activity works (or doesn’t).
For example, a person who AS A MATTER OF FACT cannot go outside and undertake any journey even if accompanied on the majority of days, becuase of “overwhelming psycological distress”, would meet the criteria at 1(e). On days when s/he can go out, but only if encouraged to do so by another person, does 1(b) apply, but only for a minority of days (because on a factual basis, that is what happens), so 1(e) is the scoring descriptor under regulation 7(1)(a)? Or would 1(b) also apply on the majority of days because the client can never undertake a journey without prompting, in which case 1(e) applies by virtue of regulation 7(1)(b)?
If that person cannot follow the route without another person because of overwhelming psycological distress, is the approach the factual one, i.e. that it only happens on a minority of days, or a notional one, that he could never follow a route on any day without being accompanied by another person?
If the factual basis applies, what happens where a person with a severe sight impairment, and who needs assistance of the types envisaged in the descriptor, does not actually undertake a journey and so need to follow a route on the majority of days. I think that person would score 1(f) on any assessment or DWP decision, so should it not transfer back to the other situation, where a person similarly does not go out for the majority of days?