PIP HELL! HELP!

Sorry Gordon, and thanks for pointing that out! I have been thrown off track a bit by the DWPs interpretation of the 50 percent rule i.e. that its safe for someone to take a bath most days because they don't have seizures most days. I am rambling on I know, but I am feeling so stressed at their lack of knowledge coz it seems obvious to me that its never safe for a person with unpredictable seizures to take a bath unsupervised.

For anyone with epilepsy who has been following this thread, I have found Epilepsy Action's response to the 2nd Gray review on the PIP Assessment which could be helpful. After reading it, I am thinking a person with epilepsy needs to take along someone from an epilepsy awareness organization to educate the appeal tribunal about the condition. It's alarming reading. .

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct...rB35IxMjBgVOotemCbZA

The document refers to evidence that impact of epilepsy on daily living is poorly understood by assessors, and treated more as an inconvenience than a disability. It's worthwhile reading the whole document, but I wanted to draw attention to the part about the safety issue and the 50 percent rule. Epilepsy Action says this rule is being misapplied in the case of those with unpredictable seizures. It's not the frequency that's important, but the unpredictability. You must need HELP at least 50% (half) of the time to qualify for PIP, and not knowing when a seizure will strike means that help may be needed all the time regarding a risky activity.

"Despite there being a requirement in the assessment to consider if an individual is able to carry out an activity repeatedly and safely, Epilepsy Action do not believe that this is being applied correctly to people with epilepsy. Many people with epilepsy are unable to carry out activities that put them at risk without supervision. Epilepsy can be a life-threatening condition. There have been instances where assessors have told claimants incorrect and unsafe information and seemed to belittle the risks that people face in daily life. Worryingly, we have had a number of reports where assessors have told individuals that it is safe for them to have a bath unsupervised, potentially putting lives at risk.

Claimants have provided us with details of the evidence they have provided to assessors that include long lists of injuries people have suffered, photographs of injuries they have sustained, details of equipment used to minimise risk and information on support they receive. Yet, in many of these cases, the risk to an individual is dismissed and not taken into account when assessing the ability to carry out an activity safely. The emphasis remains on the seizure frequency reaching the all- important 50% factor which is an unfair and incorrect way to assess living with epilepsy.

Epilepsy Action believes that the assessment process as a whole is not designed in a way that effectively captures and reflects the nature of epilepsy and other fluctuating conditions. From the initial application form, through to the face to face assessment, there is no opportunity to assess the impact epilepsy has on each individual. “.... it doesn’t matter if you have had one seizure or have them every day. My daughter has to live her life as if she could have a seizure at any point. With no warning, life has to be run in a very different way.”

Many people had an issue with the way the 50% rule was interpreted and applied during their assessment. Recording the frequency of seizures someone has over a certain period of time is not an effective way to measure the impact of epilepsy on an individual’s life. “I feel they think you should be having a seizure 50% of the time with the way the wording is. My epilepsy affects everything I do, and has a huge impact on day to day life.”

Actually, I want to print that off and send it to the appeal tribunal before the hearing!

UPDATE: APPEAL ALLOWED!

Husband awarded standard rate for daily living activities. The DWP maintained that as he only had seizures a dozen or so times a year, he did not need supervision ' most days'. Obviously the tribunal disagreed.

Great news, thanks for letting us know!