If this is your first visit, check out the community guide. You will have to Join us or Sign in before you can post.
Receiving too many notifications? Adjust your notification settings.
Wish it was all over
kah22
Member Posts: 52 Courageous
Well we got our assessment back standard care 11 points, no mobility. A lot of people get 11 points, I wonder what !!!
Anyway we are going for a MR. It’s a bipolar case and while doing some research I came across this very interesting case law Q1599/2016 originally to do with epilepsy but also applies to other conditions like Mental Health it states:
Anyway we are going for a MR. It’s a bipolar case and while doing some research I came across this very interesting case law Q1599/2016 originally to do with epilepsy but also applies to other conditions like Mental Health it states:
that ‘the decision maker should look at whether there is a real possibility that harm might occur and also at how great the harm might be. The greater the potential harm, the less likely it needs to be that it would happen on any specific occasion.
At paragraph 56, the tribunal held that:
“An assessment that an activity cannot be carried out safely does not require that the occurrence of harm is “more likely than not”. In assessing whether a person can carry out an activity safely, a tribunal must consider whether there is a real possibility that cannot be ignored of harm occurring, having regard to the nature and gravity of the feared harm in the particular case. It follows that both the likelihood of the harm occurring and the severity of the consequences are relevant. The same approach applies to the assessment of a need for supervision
At paragraph 56, the tribunal held that:
“An assessment that an activity cannot be carried out safely does not require that the occurrence of harm is “more likely than not”. In assessing whether a person can carry out an activity safely, a tribunal must consider whether there is a real possibility that cannot be ignored of harm occurring, having regard to the nature and gravity of the feared harm in the particular case. It follows that both the likelihood of the harm occurring and the severity of the consequences are relevant. The same approach applies to the assessment of a need for supervision
I found that very interesting and at the moment I’m trying to form an argument saying that rather than needing prompting we need supervision. That extra 2 points would push us over into enhanced and give us an argument for mobility
Has anyone on the Forum went down that road, especially with that bit of case law and how did you argue it. I have a feeling I should be concentrating on the words the likelihood of the harm occurring
But how to argue it?
Kevin
This discussion has been closed.
Replies
Can I ask which activity are you considering, as some have same scores for either prompting or supervision.
I should point out, the DWP can review the whole claim.
atlas46
I'm going to struggle without it. I don't know what to do.
I thought the government were putting a stop to discriminating against mental health and the mobility element of pip. Obviously not when the assessor who met me, came to my home, scored me 10 points and then some desk jockey who hasn't met me took the points off. My family really want me to appeal but I'm so scared. I woukd appeal in a heartbeat if not for the fact we are all threatened and controlled by them saying an appeal could be punished with losing the entire award.
How can noone in power think there's anything wrong with this?
It's all so crazy and confusing.
I'm lucky that I got the Daily living, am I pushing my luck to appeal? I don't know and I have to make that decision by Monday the latest.
I will be interested to know what you do original poster.
Have you got access to Disability Rights hand book for April 2018/19 , in particular page 40.
Psychological stress.
On 16.3.17, the government introduced restrictions to Descriptors 1c, 1d and1f, this was thrown out by the High Court on 21/12/17.
Have you got the assessor report for your 2015 claim, when you got 10 pts and what does the assessor say for 2018 review.
Has anything changed over three years?
Hope this helps.
Briefly it will be: she’s spilled boiling water on a few occasions, she’ll go and sit down during the cooking, has let pans boil dry. We’ve discovered out of date meat, chicken, sausages in fridge, some of it off, so that’s a danger repreparing food, I think. So I’m going for safety, reliability.
There is also the point that the HP has acknowledged the Safety aspect when she’s high, so I’m wondering if I can use the case law above in regard to depression and psychosis
if I can get that case to apply then it will push her over the top and also give us a foot hold into mobility using the same case law. It might fail now but I’m thinking of the thrall the DWP will be carrying out later on.
Kevin
atlas see your messages
But as I understand it it has all to do with the safety factor. It came about when the Upper Tribunal examined the case of three individuals with epilepsy and in that decisionns the done away with the 50 percent rule SEE HERE
You need to be adding in proof that you need supervision not that you found a case law.
It's difficult I think on some questions.
To my thinking if you really need supervision to use a cooker- safely and reliability, you might say you can't use it. I cannot cook safely or reliably, I would require supervision- but the risk is too high my common sense steps in and I don't touch it. I scored two points.
Epilepsy is considered fluctuating and that's scored differently hence the case laws you found.
I also don't understand your connection with mobility. You either qualify for that or you don't. You can receive that without care and care without mobility.
Colourfull.
I get that you cannot go out and cannot deal with lots of people, therefore you would need to work out when to go and how to go that's not imo what that question is asking you.
If this is some of the attitudes WITHIN the disabled community then it's no wonder people with serious mental health conditions are struggling to get what they need.
I don't need to come to this site and read ignorant comemnts like this. It stresses me out.
And fwiw I only have an understanding of what agrophobia is, having suffered with a phobia myself. What it is, is irrelevant if it interferes with your day to day life, however it needs to effect the descriptors to get pip on the majority of days.
What your impairment is, is irrelevant its about why it effects the descriptors and how.
I got DLA low rate mobility before pip with an invisible condition. Pip gave me enhanced and my condition isn't any different. What is different is pip is not dla and some people won't quality.
I still don't see the connection to cooking and mobility. One is asking if you can cook and the other if you can walk or if you can plan and follow a journey.
If you cannot cook because you are too tired or in too much pain after having walked to the kitchen, maybe. But they will expect you to have a stick, stall to sit on to carry on.
I feel like iv accidently stumbled into a dwp decision makers website!
Your obviously determined to prove your right so be my guest. People who suffer these debilitating and DISABLING conditions are used to hearing it. I just don't expect to find it on a disability support website thats all.
Please check your email inbox, have sent you, my thoughts on your draft.
atlas46
I know that often there is no light, not even a flicker at the end of the tunnel... everything is dark & getting darker so no matter how much I would love to think positive, my mind instead goes pragmatically & at which time there is only a downward spiral & that somehow does not seem positive.
It is like me being in a room full of wasps & you saying to me that I should think positive about not getting stung when realistically I am exceedingly likely to be & as I am severely allergic to them there is most definitely negativity all around...
Please be on notice that I intend to have you excluded from this forum.
atlas46
There are other sites available for "debates" ............This is not Scopebook
It was a question, because they don't understand something.
We are responsible for how we feel and how we respond to a post.
How are some MH conditions connected to the mobility question when it is asking if you can physically walk 50 metres?
Finding it hard to plan and follow a journey, yes, but the op is looking to score higher on cooking which gives them an argument for planning.
I think I said similar to @Victoriad in that I didn't get that because you if you need supervision when outdoors you do regardless, so you have submitted the evidence already.