We want to hear from you: please tell us about your experience of the online community.
BenefitsTrainingCo said: JazCo,Yes, your query makes sense. The descriptors are looking at two distinct situations - for 1.e, someone who can't undertake any journey. That person is likely to be confined to their home & they would have additional expenses because of that. In 1.f in contrast, the person can go out, but even on a familiar journey they need someone with them (or a dog or orientation aid) - this is likely to cause different expenses (whether more or less is something we could argue about for ages, & I don't personally think it is clear cut at all). A person who scored 12 points under 1f. could get a Motability car, whereas if someone doesn't qualify for the enhanced mobility component, they can't - but the logic is that if someone can't go out at all, there is no advantage to being able to get a vehicle.So you might say, it's the difference between making up for the extra costs of not being able to go out at all, & being able to go out but only with help. Anyway, in your case, what you are saying is that you can't go out, even on a familiar journey, without another person with you. As a result of the case law, & the regs changing back again, your psychological reasons for this ARE relevant and can be taken into account.You CAN go out, so an award of 10 points under 1.e would be simply inaccurate. But you can only go out with another person, and so it must be 1.f - 12 points. This is exactly the issue that was considered in the case which prompted the government to change the regs (before a later case decided the change was unlawful!). This is what they said in that case: 'the legislation contemplates that, where descriptor 1e is satisfied because the claimant needs to avoid overwhelming psychological distress by not undertaking any journey, the claimant will not undertake journeys so that the need for consideration of descriptor 1f due to such severe anxiety while on a journey will not arise.'But you are NOT in that situation - you can undertake journeys, with help. The only reason that 1e would apply to you would be if, even with another person, you were simply too distressed to undertake any journey.This doesn't mean it will be easy to get the right descriptor. I'm not sure what stage you are at, and whether you have had an assessment. Unfortunately, it's very common for your difficulties to be downplayed by the assessor. If that happens and you don't get the right result, do consider asking for a mandatory reconsideration and then appealing if you need to.Will
poppy123456 said: Descriptor E and F are totally different. E is you cannot undertake any journey because it will cause overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant. Any journey’ means that in order to satisfy the descriptor on any particular day the person must not be able to manage to undertake a single journey. If the person can manage to leave the home to undertake a journey once then on that day the descriptor is not satisfied, even if they are unable to undertake other journeys during the same day. As you are able to go out, then you most likely won't score points in the descriptor. Descriptor F. 11d or 11f only apply where a claimant could not reliably make their way along a route without an accompanying person, assistance dog or orientation aid. The presence of another person out of preference, is not sufficient.‘Follow the route’ means make one’s way along a route to a destination. This involves more than just navigation of the route. Safety should be considered in respect of risks that relate to making ones’ way along a route (for example, tendency to wander into the road, inability to safely cross a road or risk of self-harm due to overwhelming psychological distress caused). For example, a claimant with a severe visual or profound hearing impairment may be at a substantial risk from traffic when crossing a road. If you think this descriptor applies then you'll need to give examples of why you can't follow the route of a familiar journey and what will happen if you weren't with another person.
poppy123456 said: You stated that it's partial preference that you don't go out without your partner or someone with you and that's the issue here in my opinion, that's not a good enough reason to score you 12 points in this descriptor.My daughter scored 12 points in this because she never goes out alone. She has a learning disability, ASD and a social anxiety disorder. When she's out with another person you have to watch her near roads because she doesn't have the capacity to know when it's safe to cross. She's actually walked in front of moving vehicles when someone has taken their eyes off her for a second. I told the HCP about this during her assessment. She would also not be able to find her way home if she got lost because she doesn't have the capacity to be able to do this. Psychologists reports proved beyond doubt that she's a vulnerable person when outside and would be at risk if she were to go out unaccompanied. She has one 2 one support all the time when she's at college and is not to be left alone. The contacted the college to verify this. What i'm saying is that you have to give examples and saying it's partial preference that you don't go out alone will not score you 12 points here.
JazCo said: poppy123456 said: Descriptor E and F are totally different. E is you cannot undertake any journey because it will cause overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant. Any journey’ means that in order to satisfy the descriptor on any particular day the person must not be able to manage to undertake a single journey. If the person can manage to leave the home to undertake a journey once then on that day the descriptor is not satisfied, even if they are unable to undertake other journeys during the same day. As you are able to go out, then you most likely won't score points in the descriptor. Descriptor F. 11d or 11f only apply where a claimant could not reliably make their way along a route without an accompanying person, assistance dog or orientation aid. The presence of another person out of preference, is not sufficient.‘Follow the route’ means make one’s way along a route to a destination. This involves more than just navigation of the route. Safety should be considered in respect of risks that relate to making ones’ way along a route (for example, tendency to wander into the road, inability to safely cross a road or risk of self-harm due to overwhelming psychological distress caused). For example, a claimant with a severe visual or profound hearing impairment may be at a substantial risk from traffic when crossing a road. If you think this descriptor applies then you'll need to give examples of why you can't follow the route of a familiar journey and what will happen if you weren't with another person. See now, Poppy, your explanation of 11f is quite different to the above from Benefits Training Co to me.Your explanation, to me, disqualifies those who are unable to make a journey without a close friend or relative with them because if they go out they suffer from panic attacks or panic symptoms if they are able to follow a journey in a car for example? I have had numerous panic attacks and near panic attacks on public transport and out in public due to severe anxiety that now, ESPECIALLY as I have a baby with me, I cannot go out without my partner. This is partial preference because I think it is dangerous for my baby if someone isn't with me, but also because I physically and mentally cannot put myself through it - it's hard enough with my partner or a friend with me, I still get panicked if I have to walk past a bus stop with people there for example, but at least with someone with me I know I will be okay if I do start to panic. They can help calm me down or sit with me whilst I calm down.But my navigation skills are okay - although of course, if I start to have a panic attack when out and I am on my own, I can't think straight enough to move anywhere, never mind get to my destination. If I was in a car, with someone else driving, I could verbally tell them where to go. But I don't think this should stop people from getting the higher rate, because, without it and the motability car, they have no independence, cannot go out independently and are stuck to going places within walking distance.I was also never actually asked about my navigation skills during the f2f. I explained in other sections that my anxiety, as well as my learning difficulty makes, is hard for me to concentrate, process information and communicate sometimes - my psychological education report backs up that I have short term memory problems, concentration issues, and issues with expression (explaining verbally or through writing what is in my head) but there was never an opportunity to say this can affect my travelling. Of course, I will see for sure what conclusions were made in a week when I receive my report.But can you understand my confusion when a Benefits advisor explains that 11f is the descriptor I may fit based on the information I provided, but then others are suggesting because I can navigate under certain circumstances, that I don't qualify? What is your take on this with what I have said?
The value must be greater than or equal to 1.
Get more out of your online community by signing in or registering
