A PIP claimant must return his Motability car on Thursday and faces being permanently trapped in an intensive care unit even though he is not ill, because the DWP clawed back his payments. The clawback from Motability was made, in spite of a plea from his legal team to put it on hold, because of the PIP 28 day hospital rule which he is now challenging in the High Court. 

Cameron Mitchell, aged 20, has profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD).

He currently spends four days a week in hospital in an intensive care unit  and three days a week at home. 

This is not because Cameron is ill, but because of problems and delays in providing a care package to allow him to live permanently at home.

Without the Motability car to transport Cameron and all his equipment, he will be trapped in the hospital seven days a week.  His parents also need the car to provide personal care for Cameron whilst he is in hospital.

However, in December 2021 Cameron’s mother Nicola Clulow was told by the DWP that she must repay overpayments of PIP and Carer’s Allowance made after Cameron was in hospital for 28 days in 2020.

Cameron’s solicitors, Leigh Day, asked the DWP to pause any recovery until a court challenge to the 28 day rule could be heard.

However, the DWP clawed back payments from Motability and the car must now be returned, even though his parents need it to continue caring for him, because Cameron needs known carers to provide support for him even when he is in hospital.

Cameron’s mother said:

“Cameron has been stuck living in intensive care first in Newcastle, then in Carlisle for almost 15 months now. Not because he's ill but due to problems and delays in providing a home care package that can meet his complex special needs.

 “He's 20 years old and has had to spend days and nights for months watching very sick people who often don't survive and despite his lack of communication it's clear to everyone that he was switching off from the world, was depressed and just had no interest in life.

 “Contact with the outside world and the ability to go home to be with family are crucial for him. To go out, and especially to go home Cameron requires a great deal of equipment to go with him and this would be impossible without his Motability car.

 “Having been called on 21st February 2022 by Motability to say his vehicle must be returned on Thursday 3rd March was one of the most difficult and upsetting situations we have faced because it means that Cameron will once again have to simply stay looking at the four walls of the Intensive Care unit and not get home.”

This week Cameron was given permission for a judicial review in the High Court of the hospitalisation rule.  The case will be heard later this year.

Cameron is arguing that the hospitalisation rule breaches his rights because it directly discriminates against him, a person with PMLD requiring hospitalisation for a period of more than 28 days, as compared to those with PMLD who are hospitalised for less than 28 days.

He is also arguing that the hospitalisation rule indirectly discriminates against those who have PMLD or treats those with PMLD the same as others when it should be treating them differently in recognition of their disability-related needs which mean that they require care from ‘known carers’, people who know them and their needs whilst they are in hospital.

He is also arguing that the rule is irrational because it cuts across the purpose of PIP.

Cameron is being represented by Leigh Day, solicitors. 

You can read the full story on the Leigh Day website.



Write comments...
or post as a guest
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Steve Hawkins · 2 years ago
    The DWP has always been unfit for purpose. It wasn't much better when it was the DHSS, but at least it was nominally responsible for health matters. Now it is solely there to prevent people seen as undeserving from being a burden on the state.

    We need to separate work and pensions from health and sickness, with a department especially for the sick and disabled. If it is not politically correct to have disability or sickness in the title, it could be called Health and Human Services, like in the USA, but it really is imperative to kill the Wrath and Persecution Department moved to the War Office, where it belongs, and start giving some long lost hope to those who are trapped by sickness and powerless to fight for their rights.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Deb · 2 years ago
    My concern isn't just around the actions of the DWP - which it's important to note are automatic if declared, but the reasons for this happening in the first place. Has this young person been failed by transition from children's to adult services and what is the position of both his CCG and local authority? The legal case seems focused on the DWP but the real issues here are the failures to provide appropriate care and support. If that isn't addressed I'm afraid a long and expensive litigation is a distraction from meeting both his and the family's needs. The lawyers should also be tackling Adult Social Care and the CCG Complex Needs Team for their failures.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Bev · 2 years ago
    I don't know if this applies, but it might be worth looking into as an argument against them.  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Di · 2 years ago
    Not only is it affecting him and his family but also any person who may need that intensive care bed and nursing. Another example of DWP's total  lack of interest in people and obsession with money. Take it from those they think cannot fight back.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    A.J · 2 years ago
    So they can claw back his motability money no problem with their antiquated systems but can't amend to give the covid uplift.  Funny how they can always manage to take money off people and leave them in an intensive care costing nhs a fortune, who runs this system, poor man with no quality of life because of some stupid rules that make no sense. I despair of this benefit system 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Shelby summers · 2 years ago
    Its getting  stupid  cut benefits  looking to bank accounts  and Bill's going up I bet government  and all the rest will not struggle  and dwp she should  be  a shame  off her self we should see what they all living  on  we should get them all out and put Britain  back to normal  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Gerrard · 2 years ago
    Was also wondering why NHS rather than DWP would not pay for this, or at least what the NHS response was as it sounds like medical care is needed at home
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Aka P WILLIAMS · 2 years ago
    I'm sure when the rule was written the intent was to apply it to people in hospital all day & night and not spending time away from the hospital.

    There is an argument the hospital NHS funded care plan should consider funding the vehicle lease payments whilst individual is in hospital & DWP has failed to ask them/give them opportunity to do this as well as failing to assess/ask hospital what likely impact of vehicle removal could be which could itself increase the need for the vehicle & do irrevocable HARM.

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.