I feel trapped in my own home, and that I have been awarded TOO MUCH PIP.

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

Earlysound

Hello,

I am going to attempt to keep this as brief as possible to avoid confusing you and confusing me. About a month or so back, I received my decision in regards to my PIP renewal. In the renewal we once again attempted for enhanced daily living, and standard mobility (due to overwhelming psychological distress, after having seen the recent high court ruling)

At the time of receiving my renewal form, we declared nothing had changed, and once again attempted to score points both in daily living as well as STANDARD MOBILITY. In previous attempts I have always been awarded enhanced daily living, and always been declined standard daily living despite mine and my community mental health teams attempts.

 In a surprising, and not so surprising turn of events I was reduced from enhanced daily living to standard (surprising, and shocked) and once again declined mobility - wasn't surprised at the time, but once again frustrated as this time they decided to award me - ". Needs prompting to be able to undertake any journey to avoid overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant. " and scored me four points, which is obviously not enough to score the required 10 points to be awarded standard mobility.  HOWEVER, I want to make clear that I DID NOT apply for mobility under the above, but instead applied for mobility under - " Cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid." and take very good note of unfamiliar journey.

However, this is where things have taken an unexpected turn, although it would appear positive the decision has terrified of me going outside, and touching any of the money.  I decided to appeal the decision, and apply for a mandatory reconsideration. My Psychiatrist, Support Worker and General Practitioner all wrote letters of support, and refuted the Health Professionals findings in the report to justify her decision to the DWP.  

Under Activity 11, Planning and following journeys - the assessor awarded ". Needs prompting to be able to undertake any journey to avoid overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant. "  she stated that "The claimant, is known to be avoidant of the community, but it is reported from his support worker that he will undertake short journeys to local shops, but in the evening during quieter times. " -  this is true, but I am not always capable of doing this and will often require assistance from siblings, and or mother. 

However, the assessor goes onto say that I am also avoidant of public transport, and prefers not to use it.  I categorically would not use public transport, both for familiar or unfamiliar journeys without assistance from a person I was familiar with, like a professional or a family member. She states that If I had to travel any distance to appointments I would choose to get a lift from a family member or a taxi if absolutely necessary - this would happen in all circumstances, not only if absolutely necessary. She goes onto say that no evidence was provided to support that undertaking any journey would cause him overwhelming psychological distress - which again is false.

The Community Mental Health Team and General Practitioner put together a letter disputing all of the above, and stated that "Earlysound, would suffer overwhelming psychological distress when undertaking a journey, in particular if an unfamiliar route using public transport as supported by the letter from his GP" amongst other things such as "The PIP Assessment Guide for

Healthcare Professionals states that ‘a person should only be considered able to follow an unfamiliar journey, if they would be capable of using public transport'. Earlysound is not capable of doing this reliably, and is therefore unable to follow the route of an unfamiliar journey."  the letter then goes onto mention "In [2016] UKUT 420 (AAC) Judge Jacobs confirms that, although the DWP guidance on Activity 11 defines a journey as being a 'local' journey, the legislation does not state this and there is therefore no requirement for the descriptor to be assessed in relation to a local journey." 



and then the letter mentions something  in relation to "Cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid."  (this falls under Descriptor 1D - under Activity 11 for planning and following journeys - just as a side note to the post for later on).  - the letter carries on to highlight the following: 

" In AA v SSWP (PIP) [2018] UKUT 339 (AAC) Judge Hemingway states  the Secretary of State’s representative points out, mobility descriptors 1d and 1f refer to “a familiar journey” and “an unfamiliar journey” rather than using the term “any journey” which is used in mobility descriptors 1b and 1e (my underlining). The Secretary of State says, in effect, that that difference in wording means that a person who can make some but not other familiar journeys or who can sometimes but not always make familiar journeys is not excluded from the ability to score under mobility descriptors 1d or 1f merely through that limited ability."

Now to be clear, descriptor 1F states "f. Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid. "

Guess what I got awarded, even though the letter made it clear about my difficulties with unfamiliar journeys... The DWP, after looking at my mandatory reconsideration, and the newly provided evidence provided in the letter mentioned above and I am presuming referring back to the assessors report, and prior available evidence - have decided to award me the enhanced daily living and enhanced mobility rate.  I only found out the decision two days ago over the phone, so have yet to get an actual physical copy of the decision letter from the DWP so I have had not had a chance to look at the reasoning behind their decision. It would appear they've scored me 12 points under "f. Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid. " and not the 10 points under "Cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid." which is what I was expecting, since the letter made it discussed difficulties in relation to unfamiliar journeys. 

I'm basically worried that I am no longer allowed to walk to my local corner shop to get milk, or collect goods within my local area when I feel capable of doing so and assistance is not always available - I live independently, and so my siblings and mother aren't always on hand to support me. 

Regulation 7 of the main PIP regulations provides that the descriptor which applies to the claimant in relation to each activity is -

1. where one descriptor is satisfied on over 50 per cent of the days of the required period, that descriptor;

"A scoring descriptor can apply to claimants in an activity where their impairment(s) affects their ability to complete an activity, at some stage of the day, on more than 50 per cent of days in the 12 month period. The following rules apply:  If one descriptor in an activity is likely to apply on more than 50 per cent of the days in the 12 month period – i.e. the activity can be completed in the way described on more than 50 per cent of days – then that descriptor should be chosen." 

I do feel the above does apply for me, as on over 50% of the days during the required period I "f. Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid. " I can't always just walk to the local supermarket even though it's a familiar journey, the same as going to the local corner shop to purchase milk etc - same also applies to hospital appointments, and doctors appointments with my GP as 99% of the time 



I'm not always capable of making the fifteen minute walk even though it's a familiar journey to local supermarket (further than the corner shop, which is just literally around the corner from where I live) due to psychological distress, or that I could arrive at the store and then bolt due to overwhelming psychological distress that can be brought on suddenly, and then I would be at risk travelling home even though again I know my way too and from the supermarket etc. In terms of hospital appointments, although I could plan the journey to the hospital in terms of knowing which bus to use, and navigate through the hospital and I would say I am familiar with the journey, I am ALWAYS assisted in this 100% of the time, with the help of my mother or a health professional (I will sometimes, pay for a carer to assist me at times - when family is not available to help).  I would NEVER undertake an unfamiliar journey without assistance, and this could cover a lot of my local area, as I don't go to areas/places I have not been too before without assistance. 

I am just shocked and surprised, to me being awarded enhanced mobility rate even though the letters from my community mental health team, and the general practitioner seemed to focus more on difficulties caused by unfamiliar journeys.  

wildlife

@Earlysound I don't know why you're worried about going out when you can. You've been assessed and the outcome is correct from what you say and the PIP regulations are that even if you need the help for whatever descriptor is chosen you don't need to actually get the help. For example if someone needs help bathing but they live alone and help isn't always or ever available they can still be given the descriptor score for the help they would need if they had someone there all the time. I'm pretty sure I'm right. Correct me anyone if I'm not.