Just had a thought regarding short awards

poppy123456

Mark8699 said:

racyguy said:

Mark8699 said:

So if you haven’t CONSIDERABLY improved, is it reasonable to continue your claim?

The word 'considerably' is not used in the regulations.

What word is used then?

Considering reliability involves looking at whether the claimant can complete the activity as described:

• safely – in a manner unlikely to cause harm to themselves or to another person, either during or after completion of the activity

• to an acceptable standard

• repeatedly – able to repeat the activity as often as is reasonably required

• in a reasonable time period – no more than twice as long as the maximum period that a non-disabled person would normally take to complete that activity

racyguy

Mark8699 said:

racyguy said:

Mark8699 said:

So if you haven’t CONSIDERABLY improved, is it reasonable to continue your claim?

The word 'considerably' is not used in the regulations.

What word is used then?

I would suggest that you read the regulations as set down by Parliament.

racyguy

poppy123456 said:

racyguy said:

poppy123456 said:

What matters is at least 50% of the time over a 12 month period. If you can't complete that activity regularly, reliably, to an acceptable standard then you're classed as not being able to complete it at all.

It's 9 months going forward and not 12. The other 3 months are in the past.

Which is why i didn't state 9 months going forward. The 12 months i referred to was in total.

Yes but the impression you gave suggested that it was 12 months going forward. Not withstanding that and as I also mentioned that if a new course of medication improves the claimants health and ability to carry out the descriptors then looking forward for 9 months and if their restrictions are reduced and likely to be reduced for 9 months or more you should not wait for the next programmed review but notify the DWP of the change straightaway.

Mark8699

racyguy said:

poppy123456 said:

racyguy said:

poppy123456 said:

What matters is at least 50% of the time over a 12 month period. If you can't complete that activity regularly, reliably, to an acceptable standard then you're classed as not being able to complete it at all.

It's 9 months going forward and not 12. The other 3 months are in the past.

Which is why i didn't state 9 months going forward. The 12 months i referred to was in total.

Yes but the impression you gave suggested that it was 12 months going forward. Not withstanding that and as I also mentioned that if a new course of medication improves the claimants health and ability to carry out the descriptors then looking forward for 9 months and if their restrictions are reduced and likely to be reduced for 9 months or more you should not wait for the next programmed review but notify the DWP of the change straightaway.

So by your logic I now need to ring for a change of circumstances because I’m taking an anti depressants medication now when I wasn’t before?

Also, I’m having EMDR therapy too. So I now need to ring them and mention this?

poppy123456

racyguy said:

poppy123456 said:

racyguy said:

poppy123456 said:

What matters is at least 50% of the time over a 12 month period. If you can't complete that activity regularly, reliably, to an acceptable standard then you're classed as not being able to complete it at all.

It's 9 months going forward and not 12. The other 3 months are in the past.

Which is why i didn't state 9 months going forward. The 12 months i referred to was in total.

Yes but the impression you gave suggested that it was 12 months going forward. Not withstanding that and as I also mentioned that if a new course of medication improves the claimants health and ability to carry out the descriptors then looking forward for 9 months and if their restrictions are reduced and likely to be reduced for 9 months or more you should not wait for the next programmed review but notify the DWP of the change straightaway.

I did no such thing. What i said was "what matters is how you're affected at least 50% of the time over a 12 month period" no where did i say 12 months going forward.

I never said a person should wait before reporting changes. What i said was a change of conditions doesn't mean a change of award or even no award. They should get expert advice to check there's no difference in the points that can be scored. If there's a difference and it means a lower or no award then yes report the changes. If it indicates a higher award then it's entirely up to the claimant what they decide to do.

Personally, i had a change of condition for the worst back in 2015 but decided not to report the changes for fear of losing my award. I had several months left before review at the time. Went through review and mobility was increased from standard to Enhanced. The only person that lost out on the occassion was myself.

racyguy

Mark8699 said:

So by your logic I now need to ring for a change of circumstances because I’m taking an anti depressants medication now when I wasn’t before?

Also, I’m having EMDR therapy too. So I now need to ring them and mention this?

No, I never said that. What I said was that with the new medication you have to make a judgement call to decide if any improvement in the ability to now carry out the descriptors that you previously had awarded points on will continue for the next 9 months. If you think that the improvement will continue then you should report that there is/expected change of circumstances.

Mark8699

So one off days of improvement are a change of circumstances too?

Imagine if they caught you on a one off day. What would happen then?

racyguy

Mark8699 said:

So one off days of improvement are a change of circumstances too?

Imagine if they caught you on a one off day. What would happen then?

One off days is irrelevant. View the potential for improvement for the next 9 months.

On that second point. prosecutions have happened in the past if you are filmed on a few of those good days in a row of say a week. You would have to defend the case on the basis that the next 7 days were bad days which were not filmed. That is why you have to make the judgement call. 

Mark8699

racyguy said:

Mark8699 said:

So one off days of improvement are a change of circumstances too?

Imagine if they caught you on a one off day. What would happen then?

One off days is irrelevant. View the potential for improvement for the next 9 months.

On that second point. prosecutions have happened in the past if you are filmed on a few of those good days in a row of say a week. You would have to defend the case on the basis that the next 7 days were bad days which were not filmed. That is why you have to make the judgement call. 

There’s lots of evidence to suggest a person is still unwell though. Doctors etc. 

poppy123456

Mark8699 said:

There’s lots of evidence to suggest a person is still unwell though. Doctors etc. 

If this is you then why are you continuing to ask all these questions. All we are doing is going round in circles.