Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Pip mental health

  1. #21
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    12
    Thanks Sandy. That certainly seems to be most people's experience of the DWP in relation to mobility! But I still find it upsetting that they're just writing off these difficulties. There is no exception in the legislation that states that the 'planning and following journeys' descriptors should be applied any differently to the descriptors in any of the other activities - they still have to assess whether the descriptor can be completed safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly, and within a reasonable time period. My journey to work would usually take 30 mins during rush hour traffic & I'm supposed to start at 9am - nowadays I never make it in until at least 9.40 and often later. Luckily my colleagues and employer are much more understanding than the DWP! If I didn't have the car there's no way I could get to work using public transport and I'd lose my job - this would be a disaster for me as it's the only thing stopping me from breaking down completely. It would also cost the DWP far more as I'd then be claiming ESA, housing benefit and council tax support.

    Just a few more days to go to decide whether to request a mandatory reconsideration...

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by fizzwizz View Post
    Hi Flymo and thank you again for your detailed and informative posts. I really appreciate your time and consideration in sharing your thoughts and
    experience on this issue.
    Your general thoughts were helpful and I share many of your concerns. There were many problems with DLA, & PIP does address some of these- such as making the daily living criteria clearer for people with mental health issues, and enabling people with a mix of physical and mental health difficulties to qualify for mobility by adding points together from the 'moving around' and 'planning and following journeys' descriptors. On the other hand, the 20m restriction for people with physical disabilities will cause distress and hardship to a significant number of people with current high rate mobility awards, which is deeply upsetting.
    With regard to the Motability scheme, I agree that it should be restricted to claimants who qualify for enhanced mobility on the 'moving around' activity only- as blue badges are in England. However, this is an issue for the Motability scheme to address- I don't believe that failings in the Motability scheme should be used to exclude other claimants from appropriate benefits. Also, there will always be some people who abuse any disability scheme, & there will always be lurid headlines when these people caught - and the people this affects most will continue to be genuine claimants who are then viewed with suspicion and subjected to much harsher scrutiny by both benefit agencies and the general public. This affects people with physical disabilities just as much as people with mental health issues- there are many conditions fraudsters can claim affect their ability to move around, and there are already many additional checks that people with mental health issues face - eg it is very difficult to qualify for benefits without support from mental health services, and it is extremely difficult to qualify for support from those services.
    Just to be clear, my mum has a particularly severe form of MS and is significantly physically disabled as a result. She needs a hoist to get from her wheelchair to the car and significant extra space to enable her to do that. I'm fully aware of the additional needs faced by physically disabled people.
    In relation to the 'planning and following journeys' activity, I agree that it would be unfeasible to widen the interpretation of the descriptors to such an extent that everyone who can show a need to be accompanied outdoors on the majority of journeys would score 12 points, and I don't at all wish to argue in favour of this. I agree that this level of award should be restricted to those with the most significant and extreme needs. However, as the DWP guidance stands at the moment, it is only those claimants (in relation to claimants with mental health issues only) with the most extreme needs who qualify for any level of award. The vast majority of people with mental health issues who have significant difficulties outdoors are having their mobility needs consigned to descriptor b, and therefore no award, under the current DWP guidance.
    Whether the DWP guidance interprets the legislation correctly is still widely open for debate.
    As you stated in an earlier post, paraphrasing somewhat but retaining I hope the meaning, 'the starting point is always the words of the legislation', & 'the wording of the legislation is law'. I trust we agree on those points.
    There is then a very wide area of how we then interpret the words of the legislation, and what the law then actually is. Your suggestions for further reading will no doubt be invaluable in this area, thank you. However as I only have a few days left to decide whether to submit a mandatory reconsideration, I hope you will be patient with my layman's approach.
    I have read through the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013.
    After a careful and detailed analysis of the legislation, I can find no justification for the DWP's guidance in relation to the ' planning and following journeys' activity.
    In the legislation, activity 11 is 'Planning and following journeys'. The meanings of 'planning' and 'following' are not specifically defined.
    Descriptor b states 'needs prompting to undertake any journey to avoid overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant'.
    'Prompting' is defined as 'reminding, encouraging or explaining by another person'
    'Psychological distress' is defined as 'distress related to an enduring mental health condition or an intellectual or cognitive impairment'.
    'Undertake' is not defined in the legislation. In your earlier post you state that the Oxford English Dictionary defines 'undertake' as "to take upon oneself". You extrapolate from that that this means 'journey from beginning to end'. However, various other dictionaries give definitions such as 'to commit oneself to and begin', 'to promise to do a particular thing', 'to pledge or commit', etc. As the legislation does not specifically define this term then it is open to debate which definition applies, and my original understanding of the descriptor as meaning 'needs prompting to start a journey' still appears to be a valid interpretation at this point.
    In relation to descriptor d, the legislation states 'cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid'
    'Assistance dog' & 'orientation aid' are defined in the legislation. 'Another person' is not. Specific forms of help that another person could provide are defined: ie, assistance, prompting and supervision. However the descriptor in the legislation does not restrict the help from another person to 'assistance', and it does not exclude prompting or supervision. I am therefore at a loss in understanding how the DWP's guidance can possibly be correct as it stands. It does not correctly interpret the legislation, merely imposes its own view of what it wishes the legislation to be .
    The same applies to descriptor f.
    As stated earlier, I am not arguing that everyone who needs support to leave the house should qualify for descriptor f, and I am in favour of interpretations of this descriptor being limited to only those with the most extreme needs. However I would like to argue strongly that the current DWP guidance restricting the vast majority of claimants with mental health issues to no award of mobility should be somewhat relaxed from its current position, to include consideration of descriptor d for the standard award.
    In relation to my own difficulties, I used to use public transport but was forced to buy a car after my breakdown. I work full time so I travel every morning, but it's really really hard. I'm desperate to keep my job and my employer and colleagues are really supportive, which helps immensely. But getting to work is extremely difficult. I wake up in tears and don't want to move. The only way I can convince myself to get up is to imagine life if I lost my job - I'd have no life! So if I'm not going to go to work I'll have to go to the shop for paracetamol to kill myself, and they won't serve me if I don't stop crying calm down...
    I have to go through that most mornings, so all aspects of self care have lapsed. Once I'm in my car, I have to stop off repeatedly, either because I can't see the road through tears, or because my anxiety is so intense that I'm either extremely nauseous or shaking uncontrollably. As a result I need to pull over repeatedly, and my usual route to work consists of several 'safe' areas that I regularly pull over into to calm myself down. I rarely go to unfamiliar areas, but last time I tried I ended up lost and hysterical, I was getting beeped left right and centre because I kept jumping lanes in panic and cutting people up. My brother in law and his friend had to come and get me in the end as I was in such a state.
    Thank you for all your help so far and I look forward to your response x
    Hi fizzwizz

    Please could you try to break this up into paragraphs, it would make it easier for everyone to read.

    There are a few forum members with sight problems who would struggle to read this - it just looks like a big wall of text.

    Thanks.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    112
    To be honest for all dla medicals at home I have had a doctor or consultant nhs and quite frankly a cpn is no use I will not exceipt one of these I would ask them there credentials and tell them to go away.
    Why because atos and any other assessors are using cpns due to cost and I for one do not trust a cpn for my medicals.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    112
    To be honest for all dla medicals at home I have had a doctor or consultant nhs and quite frankly a cpn is no use I will not exceipt one of these I would ask them there credentials and tell them to go away.
    Why because atos and any other assessors are using cpns due to cost and I for one do not trust a cpn for my medicals.

  5. #25
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    12
    Hi rich-ward & thank you for pointing out my clumsy formatting. I've edited my post so hopefully when it reappears it will be clearer to read. My apologies to anybody who had difficulties reading the original text, & please let me know if there are any further improvements I can make to this or any future posts

Similar Threads

  1. mental health review p2
    By mikeydt1 in forum Health - help & advice on health issues for disabled people
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21-10-14, 15:27
  2. mental health assessment
    By mikeydt1 in forum Health - help & advice on health issues for disabled people
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 16-10-14, 07:33
  3. ESA Claim for Mental Health
    By Catfish in forum Benefits - help & advice on disability benefits, incapacity benefits, ESA and DLA
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 28-05-14, 15:21
  4. mental health and me
    By norton in forum News and general discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-02-14, 18:24
  5. WCA and mental health
    By ivb in forum Benefits - help & advice on disability benefits, incapacity benefits, ESA and DLA
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 22-05-13, 19:08

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •