- Posts: 7
- Forum
- Members forums
- ESA, PIP and DLA Queries and Results
- Safely, acceptable, often and reasonable query
× Members
Safely, acceptable, often and reasonable query
- Gentry
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
8 years 6 months ago #142388 by Gentry
Safely, acceptable, often and reasonable query was created by Gentry
Just about filled in my PIP form and the more I look at it the more I question myself!.
Sorry to ask, but from the extra information bit should I state Safely, acceptable, often and reasonable in my answers or will my they pick this up from my information supplied?
Thanks
Sorry to ask, but from the extra information bit should I state Safely, acceptable, often and reasonable in my answers or will my they pick this up from my information supplied?
Thanks
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- slugsta
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 9439
8 years 6 months ago #142395 by slugsta
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by slugsta on topic Safely, acceptable, often and reasonable query
Well, if you don't state these things specifically the assessors might draw the correct inference. If you do state them, you will know that the issues have been dealt with and will not have to worry whether someone has worked out what you were trying to say!
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gentry
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- apricot
8 years 6 months ago #142419 by apricot
Replied by apricot on topic Safely, acceptable, often and reasonable query
I have a similar question, but about ESA.
The ESA50 has similar words in the boxes at the top of Part 1 and Part 2 - "safely, to an acceptable standard, as often as you need to and in a reasonable length of time".
The instructions are that you should not to say (or tick) that you can do an activity if any of these apply, so if you can do something but not safely, you tick that you can't do it.
The HCP and DMs have ignored this qualification to the tick box statement, and have quoted each one without reference to those words - so the statement looks extreme, and it looks dishonest when presented like that.
I think I remember seeing something on the forum about these four qualifying phrases (safely, etc) only counting with other benefits and not ESA.
I am confused about this. If the symptoms fluctuate so that I can do an activity some of the time to some degree, but not 'as often as I need to' or 'in a reasonable length of time', where do I stand in relation to the points system? So what I am trying to communicate is something like,
"When I have the following symptoms (which fluctuate unpredictably), or the following combination of symptoms, I cannot do this (descriptor/activity) in a reasonable length of time." [And that length of time varies with the degree of severity of each of the relevant symptoms.]
Also, is it relevant to the Appeal even if it isn't relevant to the points system?
I'm not sure if this question is ok here or if it should have been a new question.
The ESA50 has similar words in the boxes at the top of Part 1 and Part 2 - "safely, to an acceptable standard, as often as you need to and in a reasonable length of time".
The instructions are that you should not to say (or tick) that you can do an activity if any of these apply, so if you can do something but not safely, you tick that you can't do it.
The HCP and DMs have ignored this qualification to the tick box statement, and have quoted each one without reference to those words - so the statement looks extreme, and it looks dishonest when presented like that.
I think I remember seeing something on the forum about these four qualifying phrases (safely, etc) only counting with other benefits and not ESA.
I am confused about this. If the symptoms fluctuate so that I can do an activity some of the time to some degree, but not 'as often as I need to' or 'in a reasonable length of time', where do I stand in relation to the points system? So what I am trying to communicate is something like,
"When I have the following symptoms (which fluctuate unpredictably), or the following combination of symptoms, I cannot do this (descriptor/activity) in a reasonable length of time." [And that length of time varies with the degree of severity of each of the relevant symptoms.]
Also, is it relevant to the Appeal even if it isn't relevant to the points system?
I'm not sure if this question is ok here or if it should have been a new question.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 51076
8 years 6 months ago #142429 by Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic Safely, acceptable, often and reasonable query
Apricot
PIP has "reliably" and it's sub-phrases defined in the legislation and as a result they have special meaning for PIP, this is not the case for ESA, however, the intention is relevant to ESA and can be used where relevant.
What is important is that you read the ESA Descriptors that you expect to score points for to make sure you understand what the criteria are an the language used, as an example, where PIP uses the phrase "safely" to cover the pain a claimant might experience when performing an activity, ESA uses "significant discomfort" and this phrase has a slightly narrower definition.
The phrase "majority of the time" is defined in the legislation for the Support Group Descriptors but is usually taken to apply to the WRAH ones as well. Be careful when talking about the majority of the time as it easy to fail this test if you don't check what you have written, try not to mix majority of hours with majority of days, if reasonable stick to one or the other. Also, understand that there will be an element of credibility applied by the Decision Maker , someone who reports that they are affected 50.1% of the time will be viewed more cautiously than someone with a higher percentage, although both technically meet the requirement.
Gordon
PIP has "reliably" and it's sub-phrases defined in the legislation and as a result they have special meaning for PIP, this is not the case for ESA, however, the intention is relevant to ESA and can be used where relevant.
What is important is that you read the ESA Descriptors that you expect to score points for to make sure you understand what the criteria are an the language used, as an example, where PIP uses the phrase "safely" to cover the pain a claimant might experience when performing an activity, ESA uses "significant discomfort" and this phrase has a slightly narrower definition.
The phrase "majority of the time" is defined in the legislation for the Support Group Descriptors but is usually taken to apply to the WRAH ones as well. Be careful when talking about the majority of the time as it easy to fail this test if you don't check what you have written, try not to mix majority of hours with majority of days, if reasonable stick to one or the other. Also, understand that there will be an element of credibility applied by the Decision Maker , someone who reports that they are affected 50.1% of the time will be viewed more cautiously than someone with a higher percentage, although both technically meet the requirement.
Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: apricot
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- apricot
8 years 6 months ago #142629 by apricot
Replied by apricot on topic Safely, acceptable, often and reasonable query
Thank you Gordon - that is helpful.
So why do the boxes at the top of Parts 1 and 2 include the word 'safely' (and the other phrases)? Do they mean anything?
I thought they were brought in after Harrington's comments, but that they have been made into phrases that I find it difficult to remember.
So why do the boxes at the top of Parts 1 and 2 include the word 'safely' (and the other phrases)? Do they mean anything?
I thought they were brought in after Harrington's comments, but that they have been made into phrases that I find it difficult to remember.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- foss27
8 years 6 months ago - 8 years 6 months ago #142641 by foss27
Replied by foss27 on topic Safely, acceptable, often and reasonable query
I think what Gordon is saying is that the phrases do mean something but its not as accurately defined as on the PIP form so it is open to interpretation until clarified in legal rulings etc.
The best you can do is apply the phrases as you understand them and maybe be prepared to back this up if it comes up at any face to face meetings with HCPs or any other officials from DWP. You could then use the PIP meanings as your understanding of them on ESA.
The best you can do is apply the phrases as you understand them and maybe be prepared to back this up if it comes up at any face to face meetings with HCPs or any other officials from DWP. You could then use the PIP meanings as your understanding of them on ESA.
Last edit: 8 years 6 months ago by foss27. Reason: Spelling mistakes
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: Gordon, Gary, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, jimmck, Chris