× Members

Today's announcement re: mobility

More
6 years 3 months ago #203562 by Alex
Today's announcement re: mobility was created by Alex
Hello,

I did a MR regarding mobility enhanced rate and was told the new rules regardless of when I applied for MR had to be followed and because apart from psychological distress I can follow a journey they didn’t award me the mobility enhanced.

What do I do now they’ve over turned this?

Please find their reasoning attached.

Thanks.

Kind Regards,


Alex Elliott

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
6 years 3 months ago - 6 years 3 months ago #203566 by Gordon
Replied by Gordon on topic Today's announcement re: mobility
Alex

You haven't posted the reasons that you mention in your post.

The changes to the Going Out activity were made om 16 March 2017, so I'm surprised that there is any question over their applying to your claim if you have only just done an MR.

Gordon

Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Last edit: 6 years 3 months ago by Gordon.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
6 years 3 months ago #203567 by Alex
Replied by Alex on topic Today's announcement re: mobility
Yes. So I had a MR after 16th March 2017 and they said oh you have psychological distress but that's no longer covered under descriptor F so they said no to enhanced mobility.

Now re: today's announcement overturning the psychological distress, what should I do?

Sorry. Reasons can't be copy and pasted.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
6 years 3 months ago #203571 by Gordon
Replied by Gordon on topic Today's announcement re: mobility
Alex

The key date is when the Decision was made, not when the MR was carried out, however, looking back at your previous posts this was all done more than eight months ago, so I'm not sure why you are querying it now?

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.

More
6 years 3 months ago #203572 by Alex
Replied by Alex on topic Today's announcement re: mobility

Gordon wrote: Alex

The key date is when the Decision was made, not when the MR was carried out, however, looking back at your previous posts this was all done more than eight months ago, so I'm not sure why you are querying it now?

Gordon


Decision was made well before the new descriptors and because of:

High Court rules that amendments to PIP mobility activity 1 are unlawful
In a new judgment, the High Court has ruled that amendments made by the DWP to personal independence payment (PIP) mobility activity 1 - planning and following a journey - are unlawful.
In RF v SSWP & Ors [2017] EWHC 3375 (Admin), the claimant argued that paragraph 2(4) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (the 2017 regulations) should be quashed on the grounds that -
they were in breach of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and were therefore unlawful.
they were ultra vires Part 4 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.
the defendant's failure to consult prior to making the regulations was unlawful.
NB - the 2017 regulations came into effect on 16 March 2017 and were laid in response to the Upper Tribunal decision in MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKUT 0531 (AAC) and excluded eligibility in respect of three of the mobility activity 1 descriptors - 1c, 1d, and 1f - if the reason for meeting the descriptor would have been psychological distress.
* * * * *
Mr Justice Mostyn first considers the history of the introduction of PIP and observes that -
the dominant set of ideals or beliefs underpinning the reform was that the focus would be on the impact of the impairment - the analysis would be on effect, not cause and the relevant question for the decision-maker would be 'what?' not 'why?' (paragraph 6);
a consultation document in 2010 gave no hint that the government held the view that those whose inability to perform a given mobility activity arose from psychological distress in fact had a lesser need than those whose identical inability arose for some other reason (paragraph 7);
the draft regulations laid in December 2012 appeared to divide claimants in mobility activity 1 into two sets: 1(a) those who are unable to leave their homes as a result of overwhelming psychological distress; and 1(b) those who are unable to leave their homes for some other reason. The second set had two subsets: 2(a) those who require considerable support to do so, and 2(b) those who merely require prompting to do so. There is no basis for reading 'apart from those claimants suffering from psychological distress' into the definition of set 2(a) (paragraphs 21 and 22);
nothing in the oral statement by the Minister to Parliament on 13 December 2012 gave any hint that those who were only able to leave their homes with considerable support because of psychological distress would be treated less favourably than those equivalently afflicted but for a different reason (paragraph 22); and
the guides for the operation of the new PIP scheme did not reveal any such policy intention either (paragraph 25).
Mr Justice Mostyn adds that, with Ministers having said as much to both Houses of Parliament, it is now clear that it was the intention of the Department when formulating the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (the 2013 regulations) to make a policy distinction between those afflicted by psychological distress and those who were not and to treat the former group less favourably. However, he clarifies -
'... that intention was never communicated to the outside world, and cannot be deduced from either a literal or purposive construction of the regulations.' (paragraph 30)
In addition, Mr Justice Mostyn notes that the 2017 regulations would affect 'virtually the entire canon of mental illnesses'. In the government's equality assessment of February 2017, it was estimated that if MH were reversed then by 2021, 337,000 cases would be affected annually and £900 million would be saved.
* * * * *
Turning to the first ground relied on by the claimant, Mr Justice Mostyn finds that the PIP scheme falls within Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR and also within Article 8. Article 14 is engaged as it prohibits discrimination on the basis of 'other status', disability falls within this, and it is not in dispute that the effect of the 2017 regulations was to mete out different treatment to disabled people otherwise in the same position. He therefore considers whether the discrimination can be satisfied under a four-limbed test (as applied in Stevenson v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] EWCA Civ 2123) -
the objective of the measure is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a protected right; and
the measure is rationally connected to that objective; and
a less intrusive measure could not have been used without unacceptably compromising the achievement of the objective; and
when balancing the severity of the measure's effects on the rights of the persons to whom it applies against the importance of the objective, to the extent that the measure will contribute to its achievement, the former outweighs the latter.
Mr Justice Mostyn concludes -
'In my judgment, the 2017 regulations introduced (and I emphasise introduced) criteria to descriptors c, d and f, which were blatantly discriminatory against those with mental health impairments and which cannot be objectively justified. The wish to save nearly £1 billion a year at the expense of those with mental health impairments is not a reasonable foundation for passing this measure.' (paragraph 59)
Mr Justice Mostyn also finds that the 2017 regulations are incompatible with the purpose of the scheme as defined in the parent statute, and that a measure which introduces a change of this magnitude should have been consulted on, and that the failure to do so was unlawful.
Accordingly, Mr Justice Mostyn rules -
The claim therefore succeeds on all three grounds. I grant the claimant permission to seek judicial review and I quash para 2(4) of the 2017 regulations.' (paragraph 64)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
6 years 3 months ago #203575 by Gordon
Replied by Gordon on topic Today's announcement re: mobility
Alex

OK, whilst I can understand you chasing this, you are reacting too fast for us to be able to offer any advice, the Decision was only published this morning and it is not clear how the DWP will respond to it. For example; is they decide to appeal the Decision then it the law would remain as is until the case is heard at a superior court.

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: GordonGaryBISCatherineWendyKellygreekqueenpeterKatherineSuper UserjimmckChris
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.