- Posts: 4
- Forum
- Members forums
- ESA, PIP, UC and DLA Queries and Results
- PIP report says driving means I can walk etc.
× Members
PIP report says driving means I can walk etc.
- Niamh
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
5 years 10 months ago #231927 by Niamh
PIP report says driving means I can walk etc. was created by Niamh
I'm appealing my PIP and very near to getting my date for tribunal. In my PIP mandatory recon and response to appeal from DWP the Desicion Maker has used what seems to be a stock phrase "It is noted the appellant drives an automatic car. The activity of driving a car is in itself a multi-tasking activity requiring significant physical function in terms of grip, power and upper and lower joint movements in conjunction with substantial cognitive powers of thought, perception, memory, reasoning, concentration, judgement and coordination...It is considered that if the appellant's functioning was as affected as claimed then they wouldn't be fit to drive and would be a severe danger on the road. There is no evidence to suggest DVLA have been informed of such."
They have used this reasoning to claim that because I can hold a steering wheel for a short time without pain I would therefore have no problems using normal cutlery, using aids in the kitchen, bathroom and to get dressed and that my ability to sit down and drive somehow means I can walk with no problems using an aid over 20m but less than 50m.
I did explain that I only drive locally and get pain after about 15 mins and often can't drive at all because I'm too ill to leave the house.
I was wondering if someone could help me word a response to this rather than just calling DWP idiots who clearly haven't heard of the Motability scheme or noticed that cars have moved on a bit in the last 30 years.
Thanks
N
They have used this reasoning to claim that because I can hold a steering wheel for a short time without pain I would therefore have no problems using normal cutlery, using aids in the kitchen, bathroom and to get dressed and that my ability to sit down and drive somehow means I can walk with no problems using an aid over 20m but less than 50m.
I did explain that I only drive locally and get pain after about 15 mins and often can't drive at all because I'm too ill to leave the house.
I was wondering if someone could help me word a response to this rather than just calling DWP idiots who clearly haven't heard of the Motability scheme or noticed that cars have moved on a bit in the last 30 years.
Thanks
N
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- BIS
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 8966
5 years 10 months ago #231934 by BIS
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by BIS on topic PIP report says driving means I can walk etc.
Hi Niahmm
It is not unusual for the DWP to take this stance.
There are two distinct issues with a claimant driving, one that is reasonable and one that is less so.First, the DWP will argue that someone who drives has good cognitive ability as the process of driving requires the driver to be aware of what is going on around them, to be able to pre-empt situations that they are approaching and to be able to manage the operation of the vehicle.They will also argue that it shows good navigation skills and an ability to plan a route, however, claimants might be able to argue that if only one journey is undertaken and the claimant had to be shown that route, that they are in fact not able to plan or navigate a route, but I think there is little flexibility in this argument.Secondly, the DWP view driving as a physical activity, for example holding the wheel requires a level of dexterity, strength and endurance in their hands, arms and shoulders, They also believe that the operation of the pedals is akin to walking and so someone who can drive can also walk. This argument is not a strong one however, most people drive a car to go somewhere and having arrived at that place they may then need to then walk to complete their journey, for example; lifts more than 20m from disabled parking spaces.
If you are to counter what the assessor has said in their report you will need to try and give details on the regularity of your driving bearing in mind they have already countered with should you be driving at all. You also need to go back through each individual question which you disagree with after your mandatory reconsideration and say why you think you should have scored more highly. You could also see if you can find any case law that can back up any of your arguments. I did a quick google search and I couldn't find any relevant case law where this has been challenged legally. (That's not to say there isn't any).
BIS
It is not unusual for the DWP to take this stance.
There are two distinct issues with a claimant driving, one that is reasonable and one that is less so.First, the DWP will argue that someone who drives has good cognitive ability as the process of driving requires the driver to be aware of what is going on around them, to be able to pre-empt situations that they are approaching and to be able to manage the operation of the vehicle.They will also argue that it shows good navigation skills and an ability to plan a route, however, claimants might be able to argue that if only one journey is undertaken and the claimant had to be shown that route, that they are in fact not able to plan or navigate a route, but I think there is little flexibility in this argument.Secondly, the DWP view driving as a physical activity, for example holding the wheel requires a level of dexterity, strength and endurance in their hands, arms and shoulders, They also believe that the operation of the pedals is akin to walking and so someone who can drive can also walk. This argument is not a strong one however, most people drive a car to go somewhere and having arrived at that place they may then need to then walk to complete their journey, for example; lifts more than 20m from disabled parking spaces.
If you are to counter what the assessor has said in their report you will need to try and give details on the regularity of your driving bearing in mind they have already countered with should you be driving at all. You also need to go back through each individual question which you disagree with after your mandatory reconsideration and say why you think you should have scored more highly. You could also see if you can find any case law that can back up any of your arguments. I did a quick google search and I couldn't find any relevant case law where this has been challenged legally. (That's not to say there isn't any).
BIS
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: Niamh
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Niamh
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 4
5 years 10 months ago #231990 by Niamh
Replied by Niamh on topic PIP report says driving means I can walk etc.
In the PIP assessment guide to providers it says "Activity 12 – Moving around
This activity considers a claimant’s physical ability to move around without severe discomfort, such as breathlessness, pain or fatigue. This includes the ability to stand and then move up to 20 metres, up to 50 metres, up to 200 metres and over 200 metres. If an individual cannot reliably complete an activity in the way described in a descriptor then they should be considered unable to complete it at that level and an alternative descriptor selected.
Notes: This activity should be judged in relation to a type of surface normally expected out of doors, such as pavements on the flat and includes the consideration of kerbs.
‘Standing’ means to stand upright with at least one biological foot on the ground or without suitable aids and appliances (note – a prosthesis is considered an appliance, so a claimant with a unilateral prosthetic leg may be able to stand, whereas a bilateral lower limb amputee would be unable to stand under this definition).
“Stand and then move” requires an individual to stand and then move independently while remaining standing. It does not include a claimant who stands and then transfers into a wheelchair or similar device. Individuals who require a wheelchair or similar device to move a distance should not be considered able to stand and move that distance."
Surely this definition of moving around would mean it could not be compared with driving a car, as you have not stood up and then walked on at least one biological leg. From the definition in the guide they are pretty much saying a car is a giant mobility scooter.
Most modern cars have so much driver's assist technology they pretty much drive themselves anyway. The only time I won't drive my car due to a purely physical problem is when my right foot dislocates entirely. I can actually drive but it's too painful to want to. Whereas my normal pain is something I'm entirely used to but I imagine might put a normal person off. When I'm not well enough to drive cognitively, I'm not well enough to leave the house at all. But then the HP and DM seemed to have difficulty grasping the concept of variability!
This activity considers a claimant’s physical ability to move around without severe discomfort, such as breathlessness, pain or fatigue. This includes the ability to stand and then move up to 20 metres, up to 50 metres, up to 200 metres and over 200 metres. If an individual cannot reliably complete an activity in the way described in a descriptor then they should be considered unable to complete it at that level and an alternative descriptor selected.
Notes: This activity should be judged in relation to a type of surface normally expected out of doors, such as pavements on the flat and includes the consideration of kerbs.
‘Standing’ means to stand upright with at least one biological foot on the ground or without suitable aids and appliances (note – a prosthesis is considered an appliance, so a claimant with a unilateral prosthetic leg may be able to stand, whereas a bilateral lower limb amputee would be unable to stand under this definition).
“Stand and then move” requires an individual to stand and then move independently while remaining standing. It does not include a claimant who stands and then transfers into a wheelchair or similar device. Individuals who require a wheelchair or similar device to move a distance should not be considered able to stand and move that distance."
Surely this definition of moving around would mean it could not be compared with driving a car, as you have not stood up and then walked on at least one biological leg. From the definition in the guide they are pretty much saying a car is a giant mobility scooter.
Most modern cars have so much driver's assist technology they pretty much drive themselves anyway. The only time I won't drive my car due to a purely physical problem is when my right foot dislocates entirely. I can actually drive but it's too painful to want to. Whereas my normal pain is something I'm entirely used to but I imagine might put a normal person off. When I'm not well enough to drive cognitively, I'm not well enough to leave the house at all. But then the HP and DM seemed to have difficulty grasping the concept of variability!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- BIS
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 8966
5 years 10 months ago #231994 by BIS
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by BIS on topic PIP report says driving means I can walk etc.
Hi Niahmm
In your report you said that it had been noted "The activity of driving a car is in itself a multi-tasking activity requiring significant physical function in terms of grip, power and upper and lower joint movements in conjunction with substantial cognitive powers of thought, perception, memory, reasoning, concentration, judgement and coordination...It is considered that if the appellant's functioning was as affected as claimed then they wouldn't be fit to drive and would be a severe danger on the road."
I know it's frustrating, but it is this statement you are fighting against. I don't know what you scored for the moving around activity. You can only refute what has been said by stating why you believe their assessment is wrong and saying what you think should have been scored. If you only drive occasionally state how often, and what pain you're in. If you spend the majority of time in bed, then state it. You would probably be unwise to repeat what you have said below about a car practically drives itself.
Your primary task is to show where you neet the criteria. You need to address each of these but don't get bogged down in criticising the assessment report unless you can clearly show that it is incorrect, it is a lot easier to argue the facts of the situation;
"the assessor recorded that I walked 50m, but they have failed to document that I had to stop every 10m for a rest due to breathlessness"
than their opinions
"based on my observations of the claimant walking I believe that they can reliably walk more than 200m.
BIS
In your report you said that it had been noted "The activity of driving a car is in itself a multi-tasking activity requiring significant physical function in terms of grip, power and upper and lower joint movements in conjunction with substantial cognitive powers of thought, perception, memory, reasoning, concentration, judgement and coordination...It is considered that if the appellant's functioning was as affected as claimed then they wouldn't be fit to drive and would be a severe danger on the road."
I know it's frustrating, but it is this statement you are fighting against. I don't know what you scored for the moving around activity. You can only refute what has been said by stating why you believe their assessment is wrong and saying what you think should have been scored. If you only drive occasionally state how often, and what pain you're in. If you spend the majority of time in bed, then state it. You would probably be unwise to repeat what you have said below about a car practically drives itself.
Your primary task is to show where you neet the criteria. You need to address each of these but don't get bogged down in criticising the assessment report unless you can clearly show that it is incorrect, it is a lot easier to argue the facts of the situation;
"the assessor recorded that I walked 50m, but they have failed to document that I had to stop every 10m for a rest due to breathlessness"
than their opinions
"based on my observations of the claimant walking I believe that they can reliably walk more than 200m.
BIS
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: Niamh
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Niamh
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 4
5 years 10 months ago #232001 by Niamh
Replied by Niamh on topic PIP report says driving means I can walk etc.
Thanks that's what I was looking for. I was awarded 10 points for mobility (20 to 50m with an aid - reliably), however the HP never saw me walk or even stand.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: Gordon, Gary, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, Chris, David