DLA to PIP issues
templar
Member Posts: 11 Listener
Greetings Ladies and Gentlemen,
Back when I was 16 years old I had a rather negative experience in a storm that was battering the UK at the time. A few days later I went to go out and found that I could not as any attempt to do so would provoke a most disagreeable anxiety and panic. That was 28 years ago, and despite now being able to travel up to 150-200 metres from my house am still pretty much what you could class as mentally disabled as I cannot reach a hospital or any suitable place of potential employment.
Recently I received the expected letter from the Department of Work and Pensions informing me that my DLA is coming to an end and inviting me to claim for Personal Independence Payment. I did so, and a few weeks later had my home assessment. A few weeks beyond that and I received a reply telling me that I did not qualify for any PIP rate whatsoever. Back in the mid 90's a doctor was sent to assess whether I qualified for DLA and he concluded that I should receive the lower component which was about £20 a week, so I was surprised that the DWP would replace a benefit that takes cognisance of my disability with one that does not. I wrote for a mandatory reconsideration notice that resulted in the same decision.
I honestly do not contest the DWP's decision on the physical mobility factor, and the score I received on the "Daily Living" part regarding my ability to dress myself, operate tools etc I have no quarrel with. It was the "Mobility" part that I took exception to. I received 0 points for Planning and following a journey. I mean, I can plan, but follow??? For the moving around bit I received 0 points with I can stand and move for than 200 metres either aided or unaided. I emphatically stated to my assessor that I cannot travel more than 200 metres, so how I had that result I'll never know.
So after all these results, am I correct in assuming no one with mental disabilities can receive PIP and that it is a physical disablement only benefit?
Replies
In this case you’ve asserted that you cannot walk beyond a specific distance bit have somehow linked that to planning and following a journey when they’re not linked at all. Distance covered relates only to mobility activity 2 and on what you describe 0 points would be correct unless of course you cannot repeatedly do 200m in which case you have an argument.
Planning and following is activity 1 but only d and f relate to following a journey and they’re very specifically about needing another person, assistance dog or orientation aid.
I can only but agree with you. Your first paragraph explains it quite clearly that most claimants including myself have not only not expressed themselves to the standard that the DWP want but are also confused as to what the DWP are looking for from the claimant in the PIP process.
In my case I read the instructions given by the DWP in their notes to the claim form and try to follow them to the best of my ability. Some of those notes are clearly attempting to dissuade claimants from making their case. Take the fact that they do not want to see any evidence that is more than 2 years old and that you should not send any evidence in that the DWP have had in the past. That doesn't leave very much in my opinion unless you have a continually updated and comprehensive Social Services report carries out by an OT that itemises each and every difficulty written in such a way that it mimics the PIP descriptors. Given the current state of our Social Services I doubt that such a report will be forthcoming for the majority.
Even writing your 'story' to each descriptor is generally dismissed by the DWP when they receive the assessors report that negates everything that you have written on the basis that the DWP see that report as being the 'best evidence available'.
It does seem to me after 5 years of plugging my case that something is going wrong. No doubt it is because I am a layman in all of this and should have access to good advice that would steer me in the direction of how to fill out these documents in the 'right way'. However that access is not there. I have tried in the past but failed. So like many we go it alone effectively with 'one arm tied behind our backs' simply because we don't know enough or fully understand what is required.
That argument would never wash with the DWP as they assume that everybody has access to this professional advice for the asking. The DWP are also of the opinion that PIP is easy to understand in any event - they say they made it that way!
So planning and following a route isn't actually traversing the route then? I wish they had made that clearer. I took "following" for actual physical traveling. As for the 200 metre bit I rarely leave the house as there is nowhere I can get to. The last significant journey I made outside my comfort zone was years ago with a psychiatric nurse who I left standing there when I ended up having a panic attack and ended up briskly and unceremoniously heading back to my house.
It all depends on how the word is used and in what context. Is it a preposition, noun or adjective? The word could be used to describe moving along - mobilising.
So for all twelve activities only one of them covers mental incapacities. No bias against mental illness then.
So, no, no bias at all I’m afraid.
I've come to the
I've come to the conclusion that PIP does not cover my mental disability at all. It's very unlikely I will receive the lowest standard rate for agoraphobia. The only part of this benefit that covers my problem is the moving around part. I can move up to 100-150 metres from my house, no more. Would you then concur that I am not sufficiently disabled to be awarded this benefit?
Thanks Mike, it may well be defined in regs, guidance and caselaw, but looking at it from an amateur's point of view (which the majority of us are) I doubt very much that we would (a) have access to the regs or caselaw and (b) even if we did at the public library would we all be expected to find and understand the info?
The ordinary meaning should be as per the ordinary dictionary and then it depends of the tense used.
I hold you in high esteem from your work on Rightsnet, but you must remember you are an expert at this whilst the rest of us that can't access professional help simply muddle along using every day language.
I wou;d also say that it’s useful to remember that PIP is not about being “sufficiently disabled”. It has always been about the consequences of an impairment rather than the severity. Two people can have the same condition and one might be objectively less severe than the other. All that matters though is the extent to which it impacts daily. One might, for example, have a series of aids which may not for whatever reason, be available to the other... and so on.
What I am attempting to say but not very well, is that no blame should be forced on anybody and in particular by the DWP if that claimant can only understand a word by reference to it's common and every day usage.
As an example I qualified as an accountant and then further qualified in UK taxation many many moons ago. I have spent years using words and phrases that most people would not be able to understand why they are used in a particular context.
The same would go for welfare claims initially, the contents of the Acts (but not the spirit) and the court cases that set a precedent etc Who other than a person qualified in that subject would understand what should be put on a form and how it should be worded?
If every claimant had the option to obtain good professional advice this would not only make life a lot easier for the claimant but also make it more difficult for the DWP to keep control of their PIP budget.
I agree that a lot of claimants don't express themselves well, but I also agree with @Yadnad. Most people assume that words have their common definitions, and they probably don't ever think to look up caselaw, or regs. Those of us who do are a) experienced at claiming, b) have probably learned that we have to look up these things by bitter experience, or c) either have experienced help, or have found a site like this where people give advice.
Mental ill health is always held up as an invisible impairment but by and large it really isn’t. It manifests itself in very obvious visible ways in many cases and to suggest people with mental ill health are some homogenous group who are all vulnerable; all have the same issues is simply incorrect. Stats. actually suggest people with mental ill health do considerably better on PIP than for example those with sensory impairments. The difference is that one has multiple charities making their case and millions from government and elsewhere and the other not. The loudest voice gets itself heard.
Stats. on mental ill health could be politely described as somewhat debatable once you look at how they’re compiled and there’s some evidence that there’s nearly as many people with sensory impairment and yet the rate of claim and successful claim is way down on mental ill health.
If there’s a bias on the part of HCPs it’s toward glib answers rather than against specific conditions. Yes, we’ve all heard ”they made good eye contact and didn’t appear depressed” type statements but that’s not a bias toward invisibility. It’s a bias toward taking snapshots and that’s being done across all disabilities.
As far as legal interpretation is concerned nowadays it’s easy with the internet. Regs. have always given things their plain English meaning and contained definitions where they have not. You now have great sites like PIPinfo from LASA which brings that together with case law and guidance for the avoidance of doubt.
In several assessments I've been assessed as showing no signs of depression/anxiety/BPD, including my last assessment (0 points). I was obviously anxious, even on a large dose of diazepam, and the anxiety was masking the depression (I was insanely worked up). So even.in their "snapshots" they ignore clear evidence.
I also apparently showed no signs of pain, which is a laugh! I was on paracetamol, naproxen, 150mg of tramadol, diazepam, and gabapentin, and I was still in enormous pain. I was having trouble standing up straight, and a couple of times I gasped involuntarily as another muscle spasmed. I also told him several times that I had to get up and stretch to keep the spasm from completely debilitating me. And yet, no signs of pain. The assessor clearly knew nothing about mental health conditions, or chronic pain.
With regards to the legal/definition stuff: yes, it is easy to find online, bit that assumes that the claimant can get internet access, understands the WWW, etc. It also assumes that the claimant *knows* that the DWP is evil, and thus goes and looks for that info. I'm sure many people, particularly first-time claimants, assume that the system is there to help them. Why would they need to look stuff up in that case?
Wholly agree with the rest of your post. It’s the snapshot stuff which is a problem but, as you say, they don’t even get an accurate snap shot.
I love their “no signs of...” type statements. Easy to ridicule at a tribunal.
Following the face to face assessment, the report came back with 14 one line reasons why I did not and never have had a mental health problem - good eye contact, didn't look depressed, didn't rock, etc etc .
That did it for me. The second and third forms did not have any mention of mental illness or the effects it had on my life. I didn't see the point as the DWP quite clearly believed that I was faking the whole thing despite the evidence submitted.
The second and third assessors' reports also had the same comments as in the first report yet there was nothing on the forms that indicated any mental health condition given that I had purposely and carefully removed all reference to it. I wasn't going to be called a liar for a second and third time.
I honestly believe that the assessors' pre-empt a possible claim for mental health difficulties even if one is not being claimed.
"we tend to have had a lot of practice at hiding our symptoms so as not to attract attention"
And as they say practice makes perfect! I too have become an accomplished actor as the last thing I want is to be singled out by the public at large as looking/acting like something is not quite right with me.
As I’ve also said, the figures for mental ill health in the UK have what might be described as some flimsy methodology and an entire medicalised and politicised industry behind them, which other impairments struggle to match. None of the aforesaid should be read as in any way demeaning mental ill health.
At the risk of playing disability top trumps, most of us believe our impairments are difficult to explain and harder to see, Occasionally that is true but people with episodes or life long mental ill health often fail to appreciate just how much others see their silence or invisibility as clear evidence of an issue. Nothing is as invisible as it seems.
Side note - even as someone with poor eye contact I’ve little sympathy for the “i didn’t make poor eye contact” argument on two fronts. One is that its easy to fake once you believe it’s a symptom and thus impossible for any medical professional to sensibly draw conclusions from without other information. The other is that it’s prevalance is vastly over-stated. Indeed I speak to more MH professionals who say that making unnerving steady eye contact is a more prevalent symptom.
But yes, I agree that other invisible illnesses/disabilities are just as invisible. A good friend of mine was almost blind due to cataracts (she's since had them removed and can see so much better now!), but I had no idea until the... 5th? time we hung out? It had been going on so long that she had learned how to deal. The only way she showed it (and the point at which I, and many of our mutual friends, figured out that she had vision problems) was when she had to look at printed stuff close up (a menu, newspaper, etc.). She'd have to push her glasses down, look over the tops of them, and hold the menu/whatever about 2 feet from her eyes.