PIP Mand Rec - could I lose the lot?

Hello Gordon: Following the 'failed' MR I've submitted the appeal form for sis. Question: in my analysis of the DM's decision as provided in the MR, and in submitting further evidence to appeal (as the calendar month was approaching I had to send the form in without everything I want to be considered), would you say it was wise or not to show you know the law by quoting, for example, from B and W's guidance (not by naming the guide, of course, but by, for example, stating that 'I believe that DWP guidance to DMs defines X as Y...')

I'm getting at the notion that one could sound too clever, or worse, that, knowing, or believing one knows, the relevant law/rules, one's tailoring evidence to fit scoring criteria. Neither of us believes for a minute that this doesn't happen with claimants, and it's a moot point whether it's wrong or merely sensible, intelligent use of public information. But does it give a negative impression, do you think?

The alternative is simply to describe the facts and let the tribunal apply the law - but maybe it helps them if you do that for them / confirm their own view on the law's application (and in case they're bored/tired/could miss things)?

I understand if you don't have a view!

Many thanks,

Marcus

Thanks, Brian. The following forms a draft request to sis's GP for medical evidence, and may be a useful summary of the mobility component appeal. Questions: 1 - does it seem apt to the GP to capture a specific response?; 2 - does it seem 'valid' as argument to the tribunal, please, given that, merely on the basis of sis's f-to-f they state she CAN reliably walk 200m+? I don't see how it can properly make that assertion about reliability whatsoever as you'll see below.

Sorry this is a bit lengthy... Have stated all that follows in draft letter to GP:
---
MOVING AROUND

The descriptors: what the law says you score points for

a. Can stand and then move more than 200 metres, either aided or unaided. 0 points.

b. Can stand and then move more than 50 metres but no more than 200 metres, either aided or unaided. 4 points. [my emphasis]

c. Can stand and then move unaided more than 20 metres but no more than 50 metres. 8 points.

d. Can stand and then move using an aid or appliance more than 20 metres but no more than 50 metres. 10 points.

e. Can stand and then move more than 1 metre but no more than 20 metres, either aided or unaided. 12 points.

f. Cannot, either aided or unaided, (i) stand; or (ii) move more than 1 metre. 12 points.

I asserted b - that I "can stand and then move more than 50 metres but no more than 200 metres, either aided or unaided," given that this is defined as needing to be done "reliably." "Reliably" is defined by DWP as being "to a necessary and acceptable standard," "repeatedly" (defined as "as often as is required"), "in a reasonable time period" (defined as "no more than twice as long as a person without a physical or mental condition would take"), and "safely" (defined as "in a fashion that is unlikely to cause harm to themselves or others"). Furthermore, DWP states that "pain, fatigue, breathlessness, nausea and motivation are each key factors in deciding whether an activity can be done reliably."

GOING OUT

I have 4 points for this other set of mobility criteria, under b:

The descriptors: what the law says you score points for

a. Can plan and follow the route of a journey unaided. 0 points.

b. Needs prompting to be able to undertake any journey to avoid overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant. 4 points.

c. For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot plan the route of a journey. 8 points.

d. For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid. 10 points.

e. Cannot undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant. 10 points.

f. For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid. 12 points.


The above descriptors are defined as applying for the whole day if it applies at any point during a 24-hour period unless it is just "momentary".


My Symptomatology

Related to my diagnoses of asthma, COPD, the chronic pelvic pain associated with my endometriosis, and IBS, I stated that I cannot reliably walk more than 200m, due to frequent pelvic pain (which sometimes has me 'doubled-up' or squatting in pain and/or needing to lie down, and take pain medication (which is not always effective and in any case takes time to effect)), sometimes nausea, often fatigue (which may be related in part to medication) or often breathlessness, or a combination. In addition to inhalers I have stated that I have recourse to oral steroid for breathlessness.

The walking limitation is, then, primarily physically-related, but I explained that, in terms of motivation, I never go outdoors except for medical appointments - always by taxi except for visits to the GP (I live opposite, much less than 200m away), and always accompanied by my mother, the sole exception being in walking between her home and mine when I am relatively well, which is less than 200m away (otherwise she comes to me). I am under psychiatric treatment for this issue, and one of my problems is fear of lack of proximity to a lavatory, as I frequently need access due to endometriosis effects; can have accidents of minor urinary incontinence; and the onset of pelvic pain necessitates a lavatory when I have the sudden urge for a bowel movement, related to my endometriosis / IBS.

All these variables mean that I am some days confined to home regardless of motivation - although it is an additional, separate, factor - and on others I can walk up to 200m but could not repeat that - that is "reliably" - on a soon-after return trip without taking over twice as long - stopping every 30/40m - as someone without conditions, due to breathlessness and/or fatigue, or pelvic pain and possible nausea, if there has been sudden onset (I would not attempt a repeat journey if the latter). Where I have felt unwell at my mother's home I have either needed to stay or she has aided in walking me back home, as an arm to lean on, providing reassurance. Some days I feel physically unable to leave my home, and this can be three or four days in a week.

I would be most grateful for any evidence / support my records enable you to provide for the principle issue: inability, reliably, to walk 200m or more; and also if you think a higher-scoring descriptor for Going Out may apply (evidence for): I think d may apply, as, because of the physical issues discussed here, I would never undertake such a journey without my mother, for both physical and psychological reasons. (d. For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid. 10 points.)

Psychological distress is defined by DWP as distress related to an enduring mental health condition (which they accept I have), an intellectual or cognitive impairment. But my distress is related to fear over physical conditions described - specifically pelvic pain and bowel discomfort, the possibility of incontinence, and the necessity for a lavatory. I feel unable to risk this scenario and if I could, would not do so without my mother to support. Because this fear is over my physical conditions, DWP in principle accept it as not constituting psychological distress and so counting for points.
---
* sis is medicated for all conditions described / has had three surgeries for endo - some success only.

Thanks, Gordon.

First I think there is a real danger of your leading the MP in what they may write, but more importantly you seem to be arguing that they should rate your sister's walking and being restricted to less than 200m in opposition to the assessor's rating of more than 200m, this seems unlikely to lead to an award.

So I need to be less 'directive' in the request. I don't understand your issue with the 'conflict' over whether she can walk more or less than 200m. Surely such conflicting opinion is the whole point - or am I missing something? My point is that the assessor states she can walk more that 200m reliably. She can't, so assessor is wrong, and I believe I show why. How else can it be put other than to illustrate why she cannot do this reliably, which I think I have done? I don;t believe a 'snapshot' f-to-f enables the assessor validly to determine the reliability question, but you may disagree...

Are you aiming for just the four points associated with Descriptor (b) of the Moving Around activity?

Primarily, because she has 4 (for going out, b), so that would give her 8 for standard rate. But if she can get higher for going out, so much the better. It may be e that I should propose, although she does, rarely, undertake journeys by taxi only and only with accompaniment, for medical apts - so I wasn't sure that that excluded her from e.

Thanks again.

Marcus