PIP Text Message

Hi Mosala, thank you and thank you Gordon
Regarding the social support mixing with others descriptor - there is emphasis in what DWP say on the limited ability to understand and respond to body language, social cues and integrate socially, this identifying a need for social support, as you might expect to be needed with a claimant with Autistic Spectrum Disorder or other learning disability . The only mention of anxiety comes in the sentence regarding the sensory impaired.
It seems that anxiety preventing social integration for claimants who have mental illness causing anxiety is only obviously recognised under the 8 point descriptor but who could possibly not interact with anyone almost ever., 99 - 100 percent of the time ( You would have to live alone, never go out and deliveries would have to be left on the doorstep, if allowed not to be signed for, and no tradesmen coming in). This is impossible because although I am okay to interact with my son when he is staying with me, deliveries and tradesmen still have to managed even when living alone.
Mosala, tradesmen are my worst nightmare, I try not to have them in when my son is away, and I can't tolerate their dust sheets, I provide new ones and would provide their clothes too if I could!!!
But then the DWP do allow anxiety with the sensory impaired, so maybe there is argument for anxiety hampering mixing with others in the non sensory impaired in this descriptor?
It seems to be a bit of a net that people like me are falling through and ending up with just the prompting 2 points.
I have spoken to CAB, who because I have the enhanced mobility warned me it would be a big risk to go for MR., they said what if I lost the standard daily living PIP as well and hence would lose the SDP attached to my ESA?, I really would not expect to lose my standard daily living altogether at MR, but then that relies on them not overlooking letters/making mistakes. I also spoke with another welfare rights advisor, I read him my consultant's letter (that he think they overlooked on purpose to keep me under the 12 points on daily living - strange after your post abut your missing letter), his opinion was I should have got the 4 points for preparing food (my evidence is very similar to yours) and the 4 points for mixing with others, but he was concerned about the risk of losing the enhanced mobility plus he was pessimistic regarding paper-based tribunals .
All in all I have not registered an MR today, but that having been said because I have rang the DWP a number of times and although clearly said each time I was not registering an MR, but wanting explanation, a couple of times I have been concerned that they were registering one without my instruction. That wouldn't surprise me at all, so I could find myself caught up in an unrequested MR!
Thank you for your posts, it is really helpful to see the results that tribunal can bring, which is reassuring should the DWP really badly assess me in the future,
Thank you so much for your support,

Cruella, Yes, tradesman are a nightmare. I get friends when possible, wearing coverals. Well, I got 4 points social care to help prevent OPD when talking with people. It's not clear at all. Seems to be the luck of the draw what we are awarded - very bad training of staff it seems - all with different takes. I think you have done well to get the result you have, especially enhanced mobility (which is very hard to get), without going to tribunal. Although I think you qualify for food 4 and SC 4, maybe safer to let it go now as CAB advise and try for higher next time as only 3 years. DWP said no evidence that OCD affects daily living. In the GP letter that they 'lost' - GP said that my OCD greatly affects daily living tasks! They should be add up for fraud imo! I have had great success with 3 paper tribunals. I hope they have not put you in for an MR. Wishing all the best.

Hi Gordon

Just in case I need to know, ie put in for a late MR

Just going back to your last post, ie DWP guidance on mixing with others,
re the last paragragh: if an individual cannot reliably complete an activity in the way described in a descriptor then they should be considered unable to complete it at that level and an alternative descriptor selected.
My consultant said to me over the phone recently that prompting would not be enough for me to engage with others face to face/mix with others - if he had actually written this exactly in an evidence supporting letter, would the DM/assessor have to give the 4 point social support one?
Or could you possibly end up with no points if an DM/assessor thought social support descriptor not appropriate?

Thank you, I wondered if the consultant wrote prompting wouldn't be sufficient whether if the assessors didn't agree any of the higher point descriptors at all, whether they would ignore the consultant saying prompting wouldn't work and still give the prompting 2 points, or whether they could say zero points. Are they allowed to say zero points in this situation do you think?