PIP MR

Hi Perdita

If LL26 comes on and sees your post, she will reply to you - but please don't put in a request for your posts to be for the attention of a particular mod - that's not how the forum works - even if you think one of us hasn't given you a full enough response. We don't know when LL26 may be on again. It may be today, but it may be in several days' time. That's the same for any of us.

BIS

Hi Perdita,
Apologies for not responding sooner, but I was trying to remember a particular case...

JT v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) 2020] UKUT 186 (AAC)
"Given a choice, most people, most of the time, avoid undue pain,
distress or other discomfort, although people who have disabilities may be forced to balance the desirability of carrying out an exercise against pain, distress or other discomfort that will arise from it more often than other people do. Moreover, it seems to me that the
legislation is predicated upon there being interaction, or a vicious circle, between the engagement with other people and the psychological distress – the engagement causes distress which in turn affects the quality of further engagement and raises the question whether it can be undertaken to the required standard. The reality, I suggest, is that if engaging, or the prospect of engaging, with other people is in practice accompanied by significant psychological distress (as that term is defined in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 2013 Regulations), the causal connections will be inferred."

Although this case refers to 'engaging' there is no reason why it can't apply to Planning Journeys etc or other a lot of psychological distress a tribunal can infer that engaging with others causes psychological distress. The crux here is that (for any PIP activity) if you kind of do the activity but you are in significant pain, distress or indeed stammering etc then you are certainly not performing the activity to an acceptable standard under Reg 4(2A) - so-called 'reliability' criteria.

Importantly, don't worry about what either DWP/Assessor say about this. Avoidance is a proper thing. (And it would not be acceptable for someone who eg is petrified of people or going out to have to go out to show that they are petrified!) Unfortunately Assessors don't often record everything that is said and DWP decision makers are presented with incorrect information, and often do not apply the law correctly.

Stammering as I noted above will not comprise an acceptable standard, moreover can anyone understand a stammering voice, does it take more than a reasonable time to convey the words? ( For example a quick verbal phrase eg 'What would you like for supper' takes maybe a second to say. How long does that take with the stammer? It is not a long time to consider! It could easily breach the time limit. Is there a pause then before saying something else. This could also count. Any stammering (unless for an extremely minimal time which should be ignored) will indicate a lack of repetition to perform at an acceptable standard/ within reasonable time - hence a need for some sort of assistance, potentially communication support. However if the stammering gets so bad that for more than very insignificant portion of the day no one can understand what's being said then potentially there is an argument that 9e applies.

Remember also that even when descriptors use the word 'always' this is not absolutely all of the time. You only ever need to show that you can't do X for the majority of days, remembering that aside from any very insignificant few moments if you can't perform the task to the required 'reliability' standards across the whole then you fail the repetition test and that day counts towards the majority of days. This in effect means that you could have disabilities that change across the day, affect you for part of the day, and not necessarily always the same time of day, and you will still be able to score points, even though mathematically your disabilities may only affect you for a small amount of the whole time.

You ask about journeys. The descriptors are cumulative, in the sense that they note increasing disability. Even though the claimant may be able to perform certain journeys, can he do them all safely, acceptably and in time? (If not then he can't 'repeat'.) The 'repeat' test is important - think about the little journeys that most people will make across the day - here's some examples
take kids to school
drive home via bank to pay money in
go to post office to collect parcel
Parcel contents aren't what was ordered - return parcel to 'click and collect' shop
Visit Aunt
Collect kids - take them to football
Come home

None of these types of small journeys on foot or via a car/bus etc would be unreasonable and these journeys would reflect a normal day for most people. But if a claimant can't manage all of these, especially if due to becoming very distressed and panicky and avoids going out for this reason then he can't repeat and it is likely for the 'majority of days' he can't undertake journeys due to OPD and should score 10 points 1e.
If journeys can be made but not alone, which includes reasons of distress and panic as well as eg being blind or deaf, confused etc, then the same rationale can be applied. If some journeys can be made alone but not all, due to disability, or alternatively on the alone journeys there is still panic or the destination isn't reached at all or within reasonable time etc(ie not 'acceptable standard') then points will be scored as appropriate to whether the problem arises with familiar or unfamiliar journeys, or indeed both - then 1f will be correct.

Hopefully this will help clarify, and no need to go away if you still have something that you are uncertain about. However, as BIS says there's no guarantee that any particular Mod will be available to respond. But we will do our best.

LL26

Hi Perdita

It is very subjective, there is always the possibility that you can lose what you have been awarded when you apply for a MR, this is why we advise claimants using our guides to carefully check that they fit within a certain criteria when arguing a certain point.

If you believe your relative should fit a certain criteria then say so, and why, the why part is the important part of the argument.

Gary

Hi Perdita

If you cannot do something then you would qualify for over 2 points, I was at a training event this morning going over a similar scenario, there is a legal test case which covers this. DWP are looking into changing the criteria when PIP gets reviewed next year.

Have you checked the information on PIPinfo website: pipinfo.net, they will have legal test cases.

Gary