- Posts: 2
- Forum
- Members forums
- ESA, PIP and DLA Queries and Results
- PIP Appeal in May - Planning and following Journey
× Members
PIP Appeal in May - Planning and following Journey
- Spozzi
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
6 years 2 months ago #209973 by Spozzi
PIP Appeal in May - Planning and following Journey was created by Spozzi
Hello Not sure whether I should be sending you an email for help. I have downloaded the information but would be grateful if you could point me in the right direction.
My son, 18yrs of age is a high functioning autism. He has been awarded 4 points for mobility. Under DLA he received lower scale.
Appeal - Planning and following Journeys
I do not understand the court ruling they have noted on the document and am enquiring whether you will be able to assist If I send a copy of the section.
If you are unable to assist can you please point me in the right direction.
Thanking you in advance.
Sathia
My son, 18yrs of age is a high functioning autism. He has been awarded 4 points for mobility. Under DLA he received lower scale.
Appeal - Planning and following Journeys
I do not understand the court ruling they have noted on the document and am enquiring whether you will be able to assist If I send a copy of the section.
If you are unable to assist can you please point me in the right direction.
Thanking you in advance.
Sathia
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 51293
6 years 2 months ago #210018 by Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic PIP Appeal in May - Planning and following Journey
SP
What has been included?
From your post your son has been assessed as requiring prompting to undertake a journey, one of the things you will need to decide in order to score higher, is whether you argue that he cannot go out at all or whether he can but then cannot follow a route, the two are mutually exclusive.
The PIP |Claim guide explains the requirement in more detail.
www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/help-for-claimants/pip
Gordon
What has been included?
From your post your son has been assessed as requiring prompting to undertake a journey, one of the things you will need to decide in order to score higher, is whether you argue that he cannot go out at all or whether he can but then cannot follow a route, the two are mutually exclusive.
The PIP |Claim guide explains the requirement in more detail.
www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/help-for-claimants/pip
Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: Spozzi
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Spozzi
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 2
6 years 2 months ago #210080 by Spozzi
Replied by Spozzi on topic PIP Appeal in May - Planning and following Journey
The assessor asked my son a typical day and journey.
My son stated that he can travel on his own and use the same numbered bus only to school then college. He also said he can go to local shops on his own. He also said he can use google map. (I recently asked him to plan a journey to a new location and he did know where to start and he was confused to which route option was better).
At the assessment I did state that he cannot plan or undertake unfamiliar journey on his own and that we would have to travel with him several times with him and support him until he was comfortable and familiar with the route. I also mentioned that with familiar route if a diversion was in place he would be very stressed and would call us for advice and help to complete journey and on occasion we had to collect him.
The DWP have quoted the following:
" 'Journey ' means a local journey, whether familiar or unfamiliar.
'Any journey' means any single journey on the majority of days.
The amendmends to mobility discriptor 1 made by reg 2(4) of the Social security (Personal Indep Payment) (Amendment) Reg 2017 SI 2017/194 (the 2017 Reg) were quashed by the High Court in RF v SSWP (2017) EWHC 3375 (Admin). The court ordered that the judgement and the quashing of the amendments should not take effect immediately. As the DWP has decided not to appeal the judgement to the Court of Appeal, the amendment are quashed from the outset.
Those amendments were made to restore the position as the Secretary of State understood it to be prior to the decision in MH v SSWP (2016) UKUT 0531 (AAC) (MH) regarding mobility descriptor 1, made by UT on 28.11.16. The 2017 Regs came into force on 16.3.17.
The Tribunal should be aware the decision is mandatory reconsideration of the Secretary of State didnt take into account the decision in MH."
Gordon, I dont understand the above. Are you able to translate it to layman terms.
My point is that my son cannot plan and undertake a new journey. i,e. Unfamiliar route or destination and therefore should qualify more than the awarded 4.
Many thanks for your guidance and advice.
My son stated that he can travel on his own and use the same numbered bus only to school then college. He also said he can go to local shops on his own. He also said he can use google map. (I recently asked him to plan a journey to a new location and he did know where to start and he was confused to which route option was better).
At the assessment I did state that he cannot plan or undertake unfamiliar journey on his own and that we would have to travel with him several times with him and support him until he was comfortable and familiar with the route. I also mentioned that with familiar route if a diversion was in place he would be very stressed and would call us for advice and help to complete journey and on occasion we had to collect him.
The DWP have quoted the following:
" 'Journey ' means a local journey, whether familiar or unfamiliar.
'Any journey' means any single journey on the majority of days.
The amendmends to mobility discriptor 1 made by reg 2(4) of the Social security (Personal Indep Payment) (Amendment) Reg 2017 SI 2017/194 (the 2017 Reg) were quashed by the High Court in RF v SSWP (2017) EWHC 3375 (Admin). The court ordered that the judgement and the quashing of the amendments should not take effect immediately. As the DWP has decided not to appeal the judgement to the Court of Appeal, the amendment are quashed from the outset.
Those amendments were made to restore the position as the Secretary of State understood it to be prior to the decision in MH v SSWP (2016) UKUT 0531 (AAC) (MH) regarding mobility descriptor 1, made by UT on 28.11.16. The 2017 Regs came into force on 16.3.17.
The Tribunal should be aware the decision is mandatory reconsideration of the Secretary of State didnt take into account the decision in MH."
Gordon, I dont understand the above. Are you able to translate it to layman terms.
My point is that my son cannot plan and undertake a new journey. i,e. Unfamiliar route or destination and therefore should qualify more than the awarded 4.
Many thanks for your guidance and advice.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 51293
6 years 2 months ago #210086 by Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic PIP Appeal in May - Planning and following Journey
SP
OK so this seems to be a result of the DWP and in particular the Secretary of State, doing F all to resolve the issues raised by the High Court declaring the changes made in March 2017 to the Going Out activity as illegal.
So what they are saying is;
First of all, confirmation that the High Court overturned the legislative changes that the DWP made to the Going Out activity. This case is known as RF.
Then they are saying, that despite this, the Decision and the MR were carried out using the illegal legislation.
"The Tribunal should be aware the decision is mandatory reconsideration of the Secretary of State didn't take into account the decision in MH."
MH refers to a three Judge UTT Decision from late 2016 that stated that claimants with mental health problems could potentially meet the criteria for being unable to follow a route if it could be shown that their conditions prevented them from completing the route.
Although the DWP are admitting that they did not look at this, you must still go back to basics and explain the problems, as you have in your lastest post, that he has with navigating the route. Remember the key issue is his being able to follow the route and deal with any issues that he might encounter when doing so, for example the diversions you mention but also making sure that he chooses appropriate places to cross the road
Gordon
OK so this seems to be a result of the DWP and in particular the Secretary of State, doing F all to resolve the issues raised by the High Court declaring the changes made in March 2017 to the Going Out activity as illegal.
So what they are saying is;
First of all, confirmation that the High Court overturned the legislative changes that the DWP made to the Going Out activity. This case is known as RF.
Then they are saying, that despite this, the Decision and the MR were carried out using the illegal legislation.
"The Tribunal should be aware the decision is mandatory reconsideration of the Secretary of State didn't take into account the decision in MH."
MH refers to a three Judge UTT Decision from late 2016 that stated that claimants with mental health problems could potentially meet the criteria for being unable to follow a route if it could be shown that their conditions prevented them from completing the route.
Although the DWP are admitting that they did not look at this, you must still go back to basics and explain the problems, as you have in your lastest post, that he has with navigating the route. Remember the key issue is his being able to follow the route and deal with any issues that he might encounter when doing so, for example the diversions you mention but also making sure that he chooses appropriate places to cross the road
Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
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