- Posts: 14
Judge Jacobs and Andrews...
- SnowDragon
- Topic Author
- Offline
The judge Jacobs recent UTT ruling seems to discount people with mental health problems from this descriptor. Autism is such that it does not fall under the banner of mental health but mental health conditions can co-exist.
What is mean by navigating with regards to another person being present? In this case the person with the person is guiding the autistic person in an unfamiliar place to ensure they do not not get lost or fall into danger and can deal with journey disruptions for them.
The law surrounding 11d and 11f now seems complex. Uneccessarily complex.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
- Posts: 51284
SnowDragon wrote: Processing a PIP claim for an autistic person. Looking at the descriptors for unfamiliar and familiar journeys it states that this covers cognitive issues.
The judge Jacobs recent UTT ruling seems to discount people with mental health problems from this descriptor. Autism is such that it does not fall under the banner of mental health but mental health conditions can co-exist.
What is mean by navigating with regards to another person being present? In this case the person with the person is guiding the autistic person in an unfamiliar place to ensure they do not not get lost or fall into danger and can deal with journey disruptions for them.
The law surrounding 11d and 11f now seems complex. Uneccessarily complex.
If you look in the PIP section there are documents arguing that Judge Agnew's Decision should be followed!
This Activity is unnecessarily complicated, it has happened because the DWP have come up with a perverse (my emphasis) definition of what constitutes "prompting". Anybody facing this needs to show that the support that the claimant needs go far beyond what could reasonably be covered by prompting.
In précis, Judge Jacobs Decision is that the role of any person accompanying a claimant while they are out is one of a navigator, that they only provide assistance with navigation and that, importantly, they do not provide any support (other than prompting), to the claimant while they are out. This effectively limits the claimant to only scoring 4 points.
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.
- SnowDragon
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Posts: 14
Are you saying that the person cannot do anything else other than navigate? What about if the person needs assistance to use the toilet while out on the journey in question, needs help with purchasing food while on the journey and the additonal person in this case also provides communication support.
Is Jacobs saying we need 2 people with this person? One who can do nothing more than navigate and another person who can attend to everything else.
It seems very absurd.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
- Posts: 51284
SnowDragon wrote: Hi Gordon,
Are you saying that the person cannot do anything else other than navigate? What about if the person needs assistance to use the toilet while out on the journey in question, needs help with purchasing food while on the journey and the additonal person in this case also provides communication support.
Is Jacobs saying we need 2 people with this person? One who can do nothing more than navigate and another person who can attend to everything else.
It seems very absurd.
I fear that you have misunderstood my post

You should be arguing that it is Judge Agnew's Decision that should be applied rather than Judge Jacob's one.
To answer your specific question, there is no requirement for a second person as the Going Out Activity does not consider these factors, the purpose of the journey is not considered nor are any physical issues that the claimant might have while following the route!
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.
- SnowDragon
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Posts: 14
The DWP guidance in these 2 descriptors about needing assistance from a person says it covers sensory and cognitive to follow a journey.
Jacobs and the DWP say follow means to navigate or - for claification can you possibly give an exampe of a legitimate non Agnew example for this.... One where the DWP would accept and the Jacobs ruling would cover it?
Navigate to me is using another person to help find the way - like a guide dog finds the way or navigates for a blind person. The assistance this person needs on journey to navigate due to the cognitive issues caused by autism are but not limited to:
understanding which bus stop to get off on
help buying tickets asking for the right ticket and dealing with any money
another person to read any map or diagram
there are more but that is a flavour of the situation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
- Posts: 51284
Forgive me but we seem to be talking at cross purposes, can I ask whether you have looked at the guidance in the PIP section about this subject?
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.