Green Paper Related Discussions

Me too. Mobility isn't just walking the length if double-decker buses. It's about getting around our homes safely despite extreme pain.

About the severe criteria linked to above from Benefits and Work, I see there's a person commenting who is thinking like myself; the LCWRA criteria needs to always be met + you have a NHS diagnosed disorder from which you're unlikely to improve (& that the wording in the legislature needs clarifying). The person commenting is called John.

I'm going to mention this use of the word 'constant' here when I email a response about the Govt's Green Paper (as I'm not going to answer the few things they are actually consulting about).

The Tories were considering removing the mobility part of LCWRA, but this isn't happening with these proposals by Labour.

I think the emphasis on NHS diagnosis is very dangerous with respect to both LCWRA and any future changes to PIP.

A valid PIP claim never needed a diagnosis though obviously one has to present solid evidence. Some people never have a diagnosis because their conditions are very rare. Other wait many years for the same reason. (I saw multiple consultants before getting diagnosed at an NHS centre of excellence.) Others have private diagnoses. As long as a diagnosis is not from a local Witch Doctor it ought not to matter. The NHS only business is troubling.

ESA50/ UC50/ PIP1 forms all query our medications. What if GP-recommended supplements are paid for privately? Perhaps they won’t count any more.

Again, a claim form asks about our use of aids and appliances. The stress on the NHS hints that only aids proscribed by an NHS OT or physio might be taken into consideration as opposed to the many things claimants purchase for themselves out of PIP or other income.

I never have been able to 😉😂

Do you have a source and link?

Just watched a video on YouTube disability talk with Steve. Something corbyn has said.

I think when Kendall was talking about the 'severe criteria' for UC, the 'non negotiable' comment was just to show how much Labour truly want to protect the most vulnerable disabled people. Not of course about cutting costs to the benefits system, but showing how much they wish to offer support! But they do want this 'severe conditions' to be added to the Social Security legislation, so I think it will definitely happen if their bill goes through.

That's the interesting, or otherwise bit, about in the future scrapping the WCA, so if receiving UC then you may be considered as in the 'severe conditions' category, but they want a single assessment, the PIP assessment with it's proposed new 4 point rule, to then become the gateway to receive either UC or PIP. Something has to give, as PIP is a different animal to UC. If the functional problems you have with PIP have to be for the majority of the time, then you can't have 'severe conditions' in UC having to be for all of the time.

Similarly if PIP is about 'how your disability affects you,' &, completely fairly, then those without a diagnosis can claim, then, as @Zipz says, why would you need a NHS diagnosis for some of those claiming UC? If Labour don't begin to think clearly, then they're going to run into enormous problems, & they should be thinking about this now.

This is where I become disconcerted, as the DWP has taken over who now provides assessments, i.e. the Health Assessment Advisory Service (HAAS), &, according to Timms, the DWP is also now responsible for providing the 'Core Training and Guidance Material' about different conditions, including those which are fluctuating, which are used by HAAS. So, a monopoly by the DWP in all aspects.

Any such 'guidance' they're are providing can only say how a person suffering from x disorder is likely affected, but, as we know, everyone may have similarities, but be affected differently. I'd be tempted to ask at my PIP review if they have their handbook about Chiari 1 Malformation handy? I didn't even mention this at my PIP assessment as not many UK Drs even understand it. What about other claimants with comparitively rare disorders?

I wouldn't worry about painkillers, or any other medications, overmuch @secretsquirrel1 With PIP it seems they try to use this to ascertain, yes, you really are as affected as you claim to be as you need to take these. Tho some of us can't take some meds because of their side-effects, or they simply don't work. There's an argument about this in case law I believe that use of meds, or not, doesn't mean anything in particular when determining PIP eligibility. Just found it again.

Here's what was said by the Upper Tribunal judge in CPIP/381/2019:

'Pain is notoriously difficult to measure. There is no objective clinical pain test. But
that probably doesn’t really matter in the context of assessing entitlement to PIP
given the way the PIP Regulations approach things. The scheme of the PIP
Regulations approaches disability in a practical and claimant-centred way. It isn’t
concerned with diagnoses but rather with the impact that a claimant’s health
condition has on the individual claimant’s ability to do things. The claimant’s
subjective account of their experience of pain and discomfort is one factor to be
taken into account. The tribunal is obliged to consider such evidence as there is
(exercising its inquisitorial function to seek further evidence if appropriate), to
evaluate that evidence in the light of all the other evidence, and to make findings of
fact accordingly. Having done so it must explain its decision with adequate clarity.'

I agree that not much of this makes sense @secretsquirrel1 - however,

With PIP it's the majority of the time, so more than 50% of the time. With LCWRA, as far as the mobilty descriptor goes it's:

Cannot either:
(i) mobilise more than 50 metres on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion
or
(ii) repeatedly mobilise 50 metres within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion.

With severe conditions, the descriptor is said to be needed to be constant, not your symptoms. As far as the LCWRA descriptors go about 'physical' problems, they're to do with actions.

There are similarities with PIP in that 'discomfort,' 'exhaustion,' & being able to do the activity 'repeatedly' are mentioned with the mobility part of LCWRA.

I appreciate your concerns with PIP; like many, if not most, I don't have any 4 points either, just one 3. However, I don't want any of us to get too far ahead of ourselves just yet. First these proposals need to be voted upon, & hope they don't happen! Please try not to worry.

But if the descriptor is for mobility for the lcwra surely the distance you walk is the symptom not your condition ?