Login FormClose

Free, fortnightly PIP, ESA and DLA Updates

Our fortnightly updates bulletin is the UK's leading source of benefits news. Get the facts about what's changing, how it affects you and how to prepare. Our mailing list is securely managed by icontact in the US.
×

Notice

The forum is in read only mode.
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password:
Remember me
Members

TOPIC: PIP Mand Rec - could I lose the lot?

PIP Mand Rec - could I lose the lot? 11 months 5 days ago #193720

frmarcus

It's important to understand when talking about something like a distance that there will always be an issue of credibility of the distance and of it's variability, so taking a deliberately silly example, someone who could only walk 199m would qualify whereas someone who could walk 201m would not.

But nobody walks to such precise limits, there will always be some variance in distance, for some it will be quite small bit for others it could be quite large, the DM will be considering this when they look at your evidence and comments.

So again as an example, if someone averages 175m but with a variance of 50m then the DM may decide that they still do not meet the criteria, but if the variance is only 25m then they would.

You make no reference to the distance that she can walk, just that it less than 200m and you are stressing that this is due to reliability which immediately introduces the issue of variance in her abilities.

The issue is further complicated because most people have no idea of distance, so unless you have empirical data of her walking, there is also the risk of the distances being seen as subjective and prone to error in the first place.

Gordon
The following user(s) said Thank You: frmarcus

PIP Mand Rec - could I lose the lot? 9 months 2 days ago #197851

Hello Gordon: I take your points in your last post, thank you. My sis now has a local disability rights adviser representing her at appeal, with whom I've discussed the following.

Having the statement of case (or whatever it's called) from DWP, much reliance was placed by the HP (who 'withdrew' my sis's standard mobility at review) on sis's claim that she walked c five mins between she and her mother's home (the farthest she claims she can and does manage). The HP interpreted this as being 300 metres (which I knew was wrong). Google pedometer shows 148m door-to-door (say 150) - so the HP's inference of the distance was way out given his assumption of normal walking speed (it isn't) . This print-off will be submitted to the tribunal, and the adviser thinks it's quite persuasive. We've also asked for a GP opinion on her ability to walk 200+ m repeatedly and reliably, and are cautiously confident that her appeal will be upheld. within the meaning of 'repeatedly', 150m seems to be about the max she can manage, with a repeat home only after rest, use of loo, inhaler, etc.

Her case perhaps illustrates how tenuous evidence about distance, and ability to walk it, can be, since erroneous assumptions can be made about distance, let alone ability to walk it. I've established that Tribunal itself uses Google to measure distance, so the appellant can too.

With thanks,

Marcus

PIP Mand Rec - could I lose the lot? 1 month 1 week ago #212094

Hello Gordon: An update: HCP assumed that at the speed he assumed sis walks, and given her statement that she can manage 'about five min's walking,' she was typically walking c 300m. I measured the door-to-door distance of this routine walk at 147m, so even allowing for some variance, 200m is neither factually the case, as HCP estimated, nor viable, as c 150m is broadly her COPD-induced limit.

The point is that the HCP made an inaccurate assumption of actual distance covered, which is provable by online pedometer, with the withdrawal of her standard rate mobility based on that (four of the eight points she hitherto had for mobility). Matter going to Tribunal in some weeks, and as a broadly fact-based issue (as opposed to subjective judgement), I expect success (but with wasted resources, as this should have succeeded at MR, which couldn't see the wood for the trees).
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gordon
Moderators: bro58GordonMrs HurtybackIzzy1010LisaJenny Clarke