× Members

Cognitive impairment

More
7 years 1 month ago #180426 by Augustus
Replied by Augustus on topic Cognitive impairment
Sally

I can't say too much because you don't know who is spying in this forum! And I mean spying advisedly!t
Let's just say I could not offer evidence that ATOS or DWP would recognise, that I had a cognitive problem which tbe doctors had picked up.
But I was the one who could/cannot focus or concentrate on knowing g where to go or how to go to an unfamiliar destination. And then they start arguing whether the help you get is fundamental. Guidance or just "prompting."
If you apply a common sense point of view, demonstrating that the help receive incurs extra cost, and that this is what PIP was designed for; and that would parliament have intended that the regulations be applied in tbe way that DWP is applying them?
My appeal was in early 2015 so well before new Upper Tribunal decisions. I was appealing for higher rate mobility and the descriptor of contention was the planning journeys one.
If I were you, II would cite the new decision but don't expect any change in attitude from DWP. In a post truth age, if they can ignore evidence that doesn't suit, why not, at least initially, ignore tribunal decisions that are inconvenient!
Expect the worst...and hope for the best....with the tribunal, that is.
A

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
7 years 1 month ago #180474 by Sallygreat
Replied by Sallygreat on topic Cognitive impairment
Brilliant Augustus - thanks a lot for this. Yes, the DWP are very reluctant to take on board new caselaw and decisions (maybe I will put in a template letter to just emphasize that new caselaw is available).

Also since you won the argument of "no clinical diagnosis" early 2015 the DWP have certainly ignored this as quite a lot of people have been turned down if they have no formal diagnosis but as you say maybe at tribunal this will be different.

Could I ask you who did turn up at your tribunal? This is quite important as we asking for my partner not to have a f2f because of his autism so he naturally would not want to turn up at the tribunal either. Must admit not thought this far ahead yet. Or who can turn up at Tribunal if you do not want to answer this question (understandable).

Thanks again Augustus - you are a star! Sally

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
7 years 1 month ago #180503 by Sallygreat
Replied by Sallygreat on topic Cognitive impairment
Okay Gordon I'll start afresh - let's wind the tape back - just to give a bit of background my partner has spinal stenosis, osteoarthritis of the hips and cervical spondylosis so we are hoping that he will get 12 points on mobility 2. But as you know he also has autism, dyslexia, directional dyslexia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia and plenty of co-occuring presenting conditions like depression and anxiety. His cognitive impairment is severely affected and he deserves to get 12 points on the planning and following a journey too. It's been extra difficult as I have to learn about all of these conditions and answer the DWP form at the same time...quite a phenomenal task - so bear with me.....you certainly have no-ending patience with us!

But as one member has said on this thread DWP still do not accept "no clinical diagnosis" but they might if you give a reasoned argument at Tribunal. But we do not want to go down this route (excuse the pun) if at all possible. I will be ticking a lot of boxes in Mobility 1 including the c. Cannot plan a route of a journey. This is because his cognitive impairment is that severe to my surprise but it hopefully will tighten the reins and he will be given some points without having to go to Tribunal. So to score 8 points on c. Cannot plan the route of a journey...what is the hidden meaning behind this descriptor? As you state the forms are not clear. On the PIP2 one of the questions on this descriptor (Q13a) is "Do you need help from another person to plan a route to somewhere you know well?".

"Know well, not know well, old or new, familiar or unfamiliar" are all synonmyous and substitutable but to use DWP words "plan a route to somewhere you know well" one can only assume you to get the 8 points for showing that you cannot plan a route to somewhere you don't know well as well as somewhere you do know well, logic at least tells me. So back to planning a route you know well (he definitely cannot plan a route to he does not know) because of his anxieties and cognitive impairment although he does not have a visual impairment he needs to make sure that possible new "landmarks" are on the plan and he needs to go through the plan again and again possibly adding new roadworks or any other obstacle that has been added to his usual route. He needs to go through it again and again because of his anxiety. He needs someone to do this with him and help him plan the route. Because of his directional dyslexia he also gets lost very easily even if he knows the route, etc. etc. So is this feasible to get 8 points? Again I have just realised they might not accept his diagnosis of directional dyslexia again. But I am just making sense of c. Cannot plan a route of a journey. Maybe othes need this clarification too. I do wonder whether he has learning disabilities too, but then as you know dyslexia is a learning difficulty....he sounds very much like the example you give in B&W under 'Going Out' for someone with a learning disability.

Of course, with the new UT caselaw that came out in January we also hope to get points for him not being able to cope with minor disruptions to his route going down the autisitic route (again excuse the pun) and of course that his extreme anxiety and panic attacks affects his cognitive abilities.

As always really appreciative of any clarification you can give on this...its particularly difficult to get my head round DWP descriptors and I am dealing with a lot of conditions and disabilities that he has (I have only known him for two years). If what I am asking is "obvious" it would be good to get reassurance that I am on the right track....THANK YOU Sally

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
7 years 1 month ago - 7 years 1 month ago #180508 by Gordon
Replied by Gordon on topic Cognitive impairment
Sally

Ignore the PIP2 it is a piece of paper with words on it and no more.

The legal test is

c. Cannot plan the route of a journey. 8 points.

There is no reference to near or far, known or unknown, nor is there any requirement for the claimant to be able to follow that route.

This test is about the claimant using a map or similar; finding the starting point of the journey, the end point of the journey and working out how to get from one to the other taking into account obstructions and that the journey can be carried out safely.

If your partner has problems with any of these actions or

the planning of the route causes them such anxiety or distress that it could be described as being unsafe for them to do this, or

The time it takes them to plan the route is in excess of twice the time that it would take a healthy person to do so, or

the activity requires so much mental (and if applicable physical energy) that they could not repeat the exercise, or

the route they plan is far longer than it needs to be because they are unable to recognise a direct route or it has them crossing roads or rivers in inappropriate places then you can argue that it is not to an appropriate standard.

Then you can argue that they cannot do it reliably.

Gordon

Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Last edit: 7 years 1 month ago by Gordon.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
7 years 1 month ago #180580 by Augustus
Replied by Augustus on topic Cognitive impairment
Sorry for the delay.
Nobody from my side went to tbe tribunal but DWP sent an officer and I was warned about this: they have that right despite appellant being unable to attend. It's called a hearing in absentia apparently.
I was advised to write to the tribunal ahead of the hearing stating my concern that my absence would put me at a significant disadvantage vis à vis tbe DWP.
It made me feel only a touch better but who knows if it made a difference? You can only do what you can at tbe time.
Whether the DWP insist in sending someone or not, once you get a date and you're sure attendance is not possible, write a letter to the tribunal stating clearly why you cannot attend, saying you understand that attendance is normally advisable. It can't harm.
Good luck.
A

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
7 years 1 month ago #181252 by Sallygreat
Replied by Sallygreat on topic Cognitive impairment
Thanks Augustus - this is essential information...thanks again S

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: GordonGaryBISCatherineWendyKellygreekqueenpeterKatherineSuper UserjimmckChris
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.