nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

We want to hear from you: please tell us about your experience of the online community.

Mobility Descriptor 11 e/f

cat170685

Although I've never registered on this site before it has been a great source of information and the input / advice from others is second to none; in saying that I would really like some advice regarding the situation i currently find myself in.

I will try to keep the post specific and to the point.

December 2016 - Completed PIP application, awarded Enhanced Daily Living, Zero points motability

August 2018 - Requested intervention, was advised that due to the change in law my mental health issues should be reconsidered.

October 2018 - Home visit by assessor from Capita

December 2018 - Was downgraded from High Rate Daily Living to Standard Rate, Awarded standard rate motability.

January 2019 - Requested mandatory reconsideration

February 2019 - After MR was awarded Higher rate daily living and standard rate motability.

I called the PIP number and asked for an explanation as to how they decided that I was only entitled to descripitor 11(e) rather than 11(f) - They advised me the reason I was not awarded descriptor f (Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid) was because I didn't leave the house enough to justify been awarded the higher rate.

So I'm asking for some advice, surly whether I leave the house once a week or ten times a day - the fact that I need someone to accompany me for my own well being should be the information they base their decision on? If i only leave the house for vital appointments should not have an affect on my disability?

Basically what I was advised was the reason I didn't qualify for the (f) was because I didn't leave the house as often as they would like?

See below for reply from capita after a case manager from PIP asked for clarification for the mandatory reconsideration

START**

All 16 available attachments of evidence reviewed.

DA response advice:

All evidence has been reviewed. The HOC reports Depression/ Anxiety and Schizophrenia, with significant specialist input, medication and recent suicidal action. The IOS / MSE, SOH and FE are consistent with low mood, signs of OPD, anxiety and lack of motivation. Medications are significant for mental health and only partially effective. While the MSE reports being well nourished, the FH and PIP2 in regards to act 2 are consistent with needing prompting continually to complete a meal which is consistent with his low mood and previous assessments. While it is acknowledged that the PIP2 indicates going into shopping centre, it also states only going out when necessary. The FH reports symptoms of OPD when out and the SOH indicates only leaving the house for medical appointments a/hich usually occur once a week. Therefore there is insufficient evidence to support that he leaves the home the majority of days and for that reason 11e appears appropriate.

Change to 2d only, no other change.

END**

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Antonia_Alumni

Hi @cat170685 thank you for sharing this with us and your kind words.

Hopefully some of our members may be able to answer your questions soon.

Pipquestions2

This is what ilovecats said to me regarding this. Not sure if it's of any help.

What do these acronyms mean / MSE, SOH and FE?

Poppy has this really clearly and given you the same that advice I, and others with a thorough, clinical understanding of PIP would give so I would suggest you re-read it.

For mental health conditions it is very hard to score under Activity 11 as Overwhelming psychological distress must be present.

You need to think about whether you fit the OPD criteria before trying to claim points under this activity.

If you are able to leave the house, even needing someone, and turn up at a face to face assessment and answer the questions it is highly unlikely you will satisfy the criteria for OPD. You would (unfortunately) literally having to be suffering a severe and constant panic attack throughout the whole assessment. Just feeling terrible and panicky on the inside won't score. Just wanting someone with you because they are you are anxious is not enough to satisfy the criteria for OPD.

Some tips.
If you can go out at least once in a day, most days then it's not 11E
If you can go out but only with another person due to OPD then it's not 11E , it is 11F.

It won't be 11F, if you cannot go out on the majority of days due to OPD, therefore it jumps back a descriptor to 11E (this is where I think you are becoming confused).

If you choose not to use public transport due to anxiety, unless you become, overwhelming psychologically distressed then it's not 11D.
If you know how to plan a journey e.g. on google map but cannot follow it due to OPD and someone has to be present at all times then it is 11D however, this must be because you cannot work out where to go and not because you feel a bit anxious and want someone there.
If at any point you can leave the house e.g. to do the school run on your own, but then panic at the thought of going to the shop, it would be 11A, because you have left the house once on your own without prompting.

It is very harsh, but this changes came about as a result of many complaints where people thought they weren't scoring highly enough, which now means that where a lot of MH suffers could have fallen into a B, they now fit the A criteria as it has been made stricter, and more focus has been put on OPD.

If you have hard evidence from your psychologist/psychiatrist that states that their professional medical opinion is that you can't go out and the reason why, then that would be a good piece of evidence to back up a higher descriptor claim.
Evidence which just rehashes something that you have said, "Ms xxx states that they can't do . . . " will not cut it because that is what the HCP's hear from you in the functional history assessment at the interview.

I know I've rambled but I hope that makes sense and has helped a little bit!

cat170685

thanks for the replies folks, really appreciate it. Does anyone actually know the criteria for 'majority' of days?

Pipquestions2

cat170685 said:

thanks for the replies folks, really appreciate it. Does anyone actually know the criteria for 'majority' of days?

Was @ilovecats that wrote that I'm just copy pasting.

As for the majority that would be 4 out of 7 days. 8 out of 14. 183 out of 365. I'm not sure on the time period they're looking for but I imagine it's on the long end of the stick

poppy123456

cat170685 said:

thanks for the replies folks, really appreciate it. Does anyone actually know the criteria for 'majority' of days?

It's at least 50% of the time over a 12 month period.

cat170685

Does anyone know is it possible to request a MR of a decision change that was the result of an initial MR? i.e Can I ask for a mandatory reconsideration of a mandatory reconsideration if this time i will be providing further medical evidence. \
Im also wondering is it possible for me to lodge an appeal at the tribunal based on the MR that I have received whilst asking them to look at the case again based on further evidence been produced? I can only assume that the DwC(Northern Ireland) case manager will probably realise I have a strong case should it go to the tribunal and perhaps might save all parties time and effort of the tribunal process?

sparkle22

Hi @cat170685 can I ask why you had the 'intervention' in aug 18, was that at their request or yours and what was the purpose?

sparkle22

The reason I ask, is that the DWP said no one would lose money or have the full award looked at if they asked for the mobility to be checked based on the change of law, so if that was the reason for your intervention I would get advice. If it was an intervention for any other reason, and you asked for mobility to be checked at the same time, then that is different.

poppy123456

cat170685 said:

Does anyone know is it possible to request a MR of a decision change that was the result of an initial MR? i.e Can I ask for a mandatory reconsideration of a mandatory reconsideration if this time i will be providing further medical evidence. \
Im also wondering is it possible for me to lodge an appeal at the tribunal based on the MR that I have received whilst asking them to look at the case again based on further evidence been produced? I can only assume that the DwC(Northern Ireland) case manager will probably realise I have a strong case should it go to the tribunal and perhaps might save all parties time and effort of the tribunal process?

No, you can't request an MR of the MR decision. Once you have the MR decision if you disagree then it's Tribunal for your next step.

CockneyRebel

When you asked for your MR did you inform them that you would be summiting further evidence ?

cat170685

I’m appealing it on two basis:

1. I will be submitting further evidence from GP’s
2. That I do go out the majority of the days over a longer period. The fact that my assessment was carried out the day after I was discharged from the psychiatric hospital I would not have been leaving home but for appointments as my mood at that time was low. I did say during my initial assessment that I did leave and go out, I even said about going to the shopping centre etc but I would always need someone with me at all times to ensure my safety and to reduce the OPD.

CockneyRebel

If at the time of requesting your MR you made it clear that you would be submitting new evidence then if the MR was carried out before they received it you can ask them to look at it again. However the likely outcome will still be the same

wildlife

You can't say it isn't possible to get them to look again after your MR because that's exactly what I managed to do in 2017. I had 2 MRs. DWP knew I'd complained about my assessment report because I told them in my first MR letter. So in the MR reasons for keeping my award the same it said they would be willing to look at my case again if I provided more evidence. This I did and a change was made at my 2nd MR. I'm not saying it would happen now 2 years on but it isn't impossible.
I also want to say from lots of experience of OPD that assessors can't possibly assess this. No other person no matter how much knowledge or training they have could get inside your head and measure the level of OPD you're experiencing. Their decision has to be based on lifestyle i.e. whether or not you set foot outside your house alone together with a medical history of mental health problems sufficient to make it likely you can't go out at all without suffering OPD. Just my experience of being awarded OPD 11f in 2017 which was what they changed at my 2nd MR. I was encouraged to apply for a tribunal while this was being looked at again but didn't need to.

sparkle22

Something else I remember reading, if you don’t go out the majority of the time but it’s because you don’t have anyone to accompany you to avoid OPD, they have to take that into account. If that’s relevant in your case.

cat170685

sparkle22 said:

Something else I remember reading, if you don’t go out the majority of the time but it’s because you don’t have anyone to accompany you to avoid OPD, they have to take that into account. If that’s relevant in your case.

That’s good to know sparkle. Thanks for your input. You wouldn’t happen to have a copy of your MR letter that I could use as a template

poppy123456

I wouldn't advise using anyone's MR letter as a template because they way your condition affects you maybe totally different to someone else's.

sparkle22

I didn’t have to do the MR, I was awarded after the f2f. But poppy is right, it’s best to do it yourself. Just go through and comment on each point you disagree with. Why you disagree and give examples.

keira

If a person goes out 4-5 days a week (always accompanied due to OPD) but this is only for a short local walk or being driven to a family members home would this meet the criteria for 11F?

poppy123456

wildlife said:

You can't say it isn't possible to get them to look again

No one said it was impossible.

wildlife

"No you cannot MR an MR" and "No you can't MR an MR decision" (see previous posts). To me this means it isn't possible. The assessment report results in a PA4, the MR a PA5 and there is a PA6 so not only is it possible it was planned for sometime when PIP was set up. I found the Decision Makers very keen to get things right but their hands were tied by having to rely on the recommendation of my assessor. I told 2 different DM's or CM's as they are now that I couldn't cope with the stress of going to tribunal. So long as they had new evidence to send back to ATOS they were happy to repeat the MR. As I said things may be different now but surely some of the DM's working for DWP in 2017 will still be there now. No harm in trying. But if posters here are told not to bother then they won't.