Lower PIP Mobility award

[Deleted User]
[Deleted User] Posts: 0 Contributor
in PIP, DLA, and AA
The user and all related content has been deleted.

Comments

  • poppy123456
    poppy123456 Online Community Member Posts: 63,178 Championing
    You've scored points for Acitivity 1E Cannot undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant.
    Basically, what this means is that if the majority of the time you're unable to go out at all then this descriptor is correct.
    A claimant who satisfies 1E cannot also satisfy 1F. If they cannot undertake a single journey on the majority of days due to overwhelming psychological distress, then 1E will be the applicable descriptor, even if there are occasions when they could follow a familiar route, if accompanied.
    The question here is, how often are you able to go out?


  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Contributor
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • poppy123456
    poppy123456 Online Community Member Posts: 63,178 Championing
    A couple of times a month or twice a week is not the majority of the time.
    If your conditions have got worse to the point where you can't go out the majority of the time since the Tribunal made their decision then i'd say that standard mobility is correct.

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Contributor
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • poppy123456
    poppy123456 Online Community Member Posts: 63,178 Championing
    edited March 2022
    Yes but leaving your home a couple of times a month is not classed as the majority of the time. When the Tribunal made their decision it would have been based on what your conditions were like at the time the original decision was made (by DWP)
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Contributor
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • calcotti
    calcotti Online Community Member Posts: 10,005 Championing
    louangel311 said:
    But what I'm saying is that my condition hasn't changed since the Tribunal made their decision and me going out (or not) hasn't changed either, it's stayed the same.
    In which case I would argue that the tribunal got it wrong. Descriptor E, as now awarded, seems correct.
  • poppy123456
    poppy123456 Online Community Member Posts: 63,178 Championing
    A claimant who satisfies descriptor 1E can not satisfy descriptor 1F. Seems like DWP got it right.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Contributor
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • poppy123456
    poppy123456 Online Community Member Posts: 63,178 Championing
    If you're not able to go out the majority of the days then you can't satisfy 1F. Being able to leave your home a couple of times a month is not the majority of the time.
    If your conditions haven't changed since you were awarded by the Tribunal then i agree with calcotti and they got it wrong.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Contributor
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • calcotti
    calcotti Online Community Member Posts: 10,005 Championing
    edited March 2022
    Are you saying there was a tribunal decision prior to 2020?

    My recollections is that there was clarification of the relationship between 11e and 11f but I can’t recall exactly when that was.

    Regardless, based on what you have said, I would still consider descriptor 11e to be the appropriate descriptor.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Contributor
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • calcotti
    calcotti Online Community Member Posts: 10,005 Championing
    edited March 2022
    Now I’m very confused. In one post you appeared to say that the two tribunals agreed with each other but now you appear to be saying one gave you 11b and the other 11e.

    louangel311 said:
    If it was just one panel, then yes, I could agree with you.
    ..
    And then another judge sitting on another Tribunal panel to agree with him?
    louangel311 said:
    My condition hasn't changed since the Tribunal made their award and gave me 12 points. 
    louangel311 said:
    Yes, in 2019 the first Tribunal awarded me 4 points under descriptor 1b 

  • chiarieds
    chiarieds Online Community Member Posts: 16,682 Championing
    From what I've read, I agree with Poppy & calcotti. I'm not sure if this is what you were thinking about @calcotti but with the case of MH in Nov. 2016, the UT again says that if a claimant satisfies 1e, then they cannot also satisfy 1f
  • calcotti
    calcotti Online Community Member Posts: 10,005 Championing
    Thanks, chiarieds,
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Contributor
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • calcotti
    calcotti Online Community Member Posts: 10,005 Championing
    edited March 2022
    So it wasn’t two tribunals in agreement as suggested by your previous post.
    louangel311 said:
    I know that nobody can make this decision for me but is it better to just accept what I've been given (even though I don't agree with it) or ask for an MR and end up with nothing?
    In answer to the original question, I remain of the opinion, based on the limited information you have given about how your condition affects you, that the decision to award 11e is correct and therefore I would not challenge it.
  • poppy123456
    poppy123456 Online Community Member Posts: 63,178 Championing
    I agree with calcotti here and it seems like you've been given the correct award based on the information you've given. There's nothing to challenge here.

Categories