Mental Health & PIP Mobility Activities?

The government recently backed down concerning the court cases challenging the decision to restrict some of the PIP Mobility descriptors to physical illness only. I have read the submissions in the members guides section about, "planning and following journeys". If possible, I would like some more information about this please.

1. Will people with mental illness who only received 4 points for Mobility descriptor 1b now be reassessed for descriptor 1d and 1f (need help following an unfamiliar/familiar journey)?

2. How will the DWP decide who is eligible for 1d or 1f when the original PIP assessor and decision maker, under the old rules, refused to even acknowledge that descriptors 1d or 1f applied to claimants with mental illness? If they disregarded our needs then how will they be able to make a decision based on an old, flawed assessment?

3. Does the new ruling include a reappraisal of Mobility activities, question 2 (Moving Around) for people with mental illness? For example, if the mental health condition causes considerable distress that the person has to stop moving around regularly and repeatedly and either sit or lie down inside or outside the home for long periods due to their condition.
(Perhaps this is covered by the Mobility descriptor 1d and f?)

4. How can the DWP claim that PIP assessments were carried out fairly when they disregarded evidence? When someone is assessed based on certain criteria then the assessor will ignore any evidence that does not fit that criteria. I am deeply concerned that any decision that the DWP makes based on past assessments about mobility (that have been deemed legally flawed) will perpetuate discrimination against claimants with mental illness.

5. The PIP assessment criteria for "planning and following journeys" specifically states that descriptors 1d and 1f apply to physical conditions only. Could this have influenced how much evidence and information people with mental illness included with their application? And did it influence the advice that those claimants received when applying for PIP? If the PIP descriptors were wrong and any advice about them was wrong then how can the original assessments form the basis of any subsequent decision about a claimants mobility needs?

I hope we can get some clarity about these issues as soon as possible.

Hello Spectralis, I hope you don't mind if I add my thoughts to your post? I also received only 4 points for mental health mobility when I had my PIP assessment in March 2017. I did not appeal the decision because I was also being re-assessed for ESA and I felt too unwell to deal with both problems at the same time. I feel that I am now left in the dark somewhat. I phoned the PIP helpline after the announcement in January and was told they would be writing to everyone concerned, but they could not tell me if that included me. As that is 1.6 million claimants according to the news, I am now wondering if it would be better to just re-apply for PIP rather than wait years for a letter that may come or may not come.

Thanks Gordon! I asked because I'm in the process of a PIP review, but after viewing that thread, I realise that my questions are impossible to answer atm.

Maria, I'm not sure what to suggest in your specific case but if you were awarded PIP and you're having (or due) a PIP review then perhaps that's the time to include more info about your mobility needs. I'm going to update my review with more info about how my mobility is affected by my illness. Then, at least, I have supplied all the evidence I can should they reassess me based on the latest interpretation of the mobility descriptors 1d and 1f.

The DWP seem to have begrudgingly backed down. I don't have any trust that they will apply any rational or consistent method of reviewing the original assessments that were based on a misinterpretation of the guidelines. It seems to me like allowing those who misinterpreted the cladding guidelines to use the original surveys to rectify their mistakes. Both had severe consequences for some of those affected.