PIP Reconsideration Query

Jon

You say failed PIP claim, if no award was made then there is no harm in challenging the Decision, however, if a partial award was made, then the first thing that needs to be considered is how secure is that award, as any request for an Mandatory Reconsideration or subsequent appeal opens the whole claim up to re-evaluation and whilst it is unlikely it is still possible for that award to be removed.

I've had a look at the PIP Descriptors for Going Out and the latest guidance for PIP assessors issued by the DWP.

As a general comment I can see no reason why someone with mental health issues cannot score 12 points for the Going Out Descriptor, obviously the higher the points the more severe the restriction required, but there is nothing inherent in any of the Descriptors that limits them to a physical problem such as blindness.

That said, there has been some controversy over a recent change to the guidance (not the actual Descriptor) In regard to prompting and navigation by someone accompanying the claimant covered by Descriptor B, I don't believe that this is directly relevant to your relative but the guidance makes reference to this sub-Descriptor on all of the other ones.

The key issue is whether your relative can go out if prompted or is unable to do so whatever prompting or support is offered. You should not take this an absolute, as the issue of reliability is still relevant, but I think they would need to show a substantial limitation rather than one that affects them the majority of the time.

Descriptor D (10 points) reads

Cannot undertake any journey because it would cause overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant.

and the DWP guidance for this is

For example: may apply to claimants who are unable to leave the home at all, even if they are accompanied. It does not apply to claimants who are able to leave the home with someone with them to provide reassurance as this is covered by descriptor B.

I've highlighted the area that would seem relevant based on your post.

Returning to your original question, I find it difficult to understand how this could be for anything other than a mental health issue.

There is a 12 point sub-Descriptor but I am less confident, based on your post, that your relative would meet this. Have a look at the PIP Claim guide for more information. Obviously this is very much down to how they have presented their limitation and the evidence that they have supplied in support.

I hope this helps

Gordon

Jon

If the form was completed some six months ago then one strategy, assuming it applies, is to update based on the differences between your relatives condition then and how he was at the time of the assessment, however, you must be careful to identify when changes occurred as the DM will not consider anything that has occurred since the assessment was done and any changes ideally need to be supported by medical evidence if at all possible.

There is no problem, in principle, with introducing new evidence and evidence for Descriptors that had not previously been identified, however, the DM's often view the original form as the most reliable source of information (this assumes a familiarity with the assessment system that most claimants lack), so you will need to carefully explain why new limitations are being submitted, if your relative is not fully aware of their conditions then this may be considered reasonable but you should also give some thought as to why these problems were not identified during the face to face.

In a similar vein it may be possible to get the Managing Therapies score increased, your post highlights several important aspects that many claimants fail to include; empirical information about they do (what you do, for how long and how often) and information about what happens when they do or don't do something. It is also important to distinguish between what can be done and isn't, versus what cannot be done and why it can't, claimants are much less likely to score for the former than the latter and it is often as simple as poor phraseology that can lead a DM to conclude that problems are not severe as suggested.

Gordon

Jon wrote: Thank you once again, Gordon. We now have a much clearer idea of how to proceed with his reconsideration request and will certainly make use of the information you have kindly provided.

I should note that he was not required to participate in a face to face assessment or similar, much to his surprise and relief. It appears that this is fairly uncommon.

Jon

Rates have increased recently (they may now be as high as 20%), but paper assessments were originally less than 3% of the total.

Gordon