- Posts: 61
× Members
PIP LEAP review MH v DWP
- Alex
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
4 years 3 weeks ago #258126 by Alex
PIP LEAP review MH v DWP was created by Alex
Hello,
I was reading the latest newsletter about the MH v DWP ruling. I noted on the newsletter it stated: 'Claimants should have been awarded the standard rate of PIP mobility if, because of overwhelming psychological distress, they needed someone with them to follow the route of an unfamiliar journey or if they could not undertake a journey at all.'
I recently got some of my records relating to PIP and read the LEAP review decision outcome I received back in April 2019.
The assessor said they looked at my PIP claim from 8th February 2017 because of changes in the law. That seems odd as the letter says, 'the change regarding MH v DWP applies from 28th November 2016'. The assessor says that it looks at how overwhelming psychological distress is considered when assessing the ability of someone to plan and follow a journey and as the evidence shows I avoid overwhelming psychological distress by not undertaking any journeys, therefore there is no psychological distress to experience effectively.
The newsletter says that the LEAP review should consider 'because of overwhelming psychological distress, they needed someone with them to follow the route of an unfamiliar journey or if they could not undertake a journey at all.'
It seems to me that the assessor hasn't taken this into account?
I might have got this completely wrong. But I am concerned that A) the assessor didn't review my award correctly and B ) He reviewed it from a later date than when the ruling came into affect?
I was awarded no mobility back in 2015 - 2017 and scored on the descriptors 'needs prompting to go out' and then in 2017 when my award was reviewed, I was awarded the standard mobility element due to overwhelming psychological distress and not being able to go out, and the notes in my claim states 'nothing has changed', therefore arguing they knew I couldn't go out?
I recognise that even if the assessor got this wrong, I am out of time, but is there a possibility the HMCTS could look into this if I have thought right and the assessor made mistakes or didn't apply the ruling correctly?
Thanks.
I was reading the latest newsletter about the MH v DWP ruling. I noted on the newsletter it stated: 'Claimants should have been awarded the standard rate of PIP mobility if, because of overwhelming psychological distress, they needed someone with them to follow the route of an unfamiliar journey or if they could not undertake a journey at all.'
I recently got some of my records relating to PIP and read the LEAP review decision outcome I received back in April 2019.
The assessor said they looked at my PIP claim from 8th February 2017 because of changes in the law. That seems odd as the letter says, 'the change regarding MH v DWP applies from 28th November 2016'. The assessor says that it looks at how overwhelming psychological distress is considered when assessing the ability of someone to plan and follow a journey and as the evidence shows I avoid overwhelming psychological distress by not undertaking any journeys, therefore there is no psychological distress to experience effectively.
The newsletter says that the LEAP review should consider 'because of overwhelming psychological distress, they needed someone with them to follow the route of an unfamiliar journey or if they could not undertake a journey at all.'
It seems to me that the assessor hasn't taken this into account?
I might have got this completely wrong. But I am concerned that A) the assessor didn't review my award correctly and B ) He reviewed it from a later date than when the ruling came into affect?
I was awarded no mobility back in 2015 - 2017 and scored on the descriptors 'needs prompting to go out' and then in 2017 when my award was reviewed, I was awarded the standard mobility element due to overwhelming psychological distress and not being able to go out, and the notes in my claim states 'nothing has changed', therefore arguing they knew I couldn't go out?
I recognise that even if the assessor got this wrong, I am out of time, but is there a possibility the HMCTS could look into this if I have thought right and the assessor made mistakes or didn't apply the ruling correctly?
Thanks.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gary
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 8436
4 years 3 weeks ago #258256 by Gary
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gary on topic PIP LEAP review MH v DWP
Hi Alex
A couple of points to bear in mind
Mobility Decisions made before 28.11.16 will not be reviewed, however, it may be possible to argue that a claimant met the criteria from this date and therefore should be considered. Any argument must be based on the claimant's limitations as they were at this time and evidence must clearly reference this time as well. Realistically, new evidence and testimony trying to reference back to this date is going to struggle and is unlikely to be accepted.
Second, it is important to remember that Descriptors (e) and (f) are mutually exclusive of each other!
In short, a claimant cannot argue that they meet (f) without fundamentally undermining the reasons that (e) was awarded, if it was, with a danger that they might score lower or even not at all if they do not clearly show that they meet the higher criteria. There is no way to mitigate this situation.
Clear evidence of Overwhelming Psychological Distress when following a route is essential.
The DWP are reviewing claims but if your claim relates to before 28.11.16 then it will not be reviewed, from the dates you have mentioned on your post you are outside the timeline and therefore your claim will not be reviewed.
Gary
A couple of points to bear in mind
Mobility Decisions made before 28.11.16 will not be reviewed, however, it may be possible to argue that a claimant met the criteria from this date and therefore should be considered. Any argument must be based on the claimant's limitations as they were at this time and evidence must clearly reference this time as well. Realistically, new evidence and testimony trying to reference back to this date is going to struggle and is unlikely to be accepted.
Second, it is important to remember that Descriptors (e) and (f) are mutually exclusive of each other!
In short, a claimant cannot argue that they meet (f) without fundamentally undermining the reasons that (e) was awarded, if it was, with a danger that they might score lower or even not at all if they do not clearly show that they meet the higher criteria. There is no way to mitigate this situation.
Clear evidence of Overwhelming Psychological Distress when following a route is essential.
The DWP are reviewing claims but if your claim relates to before 28.11.16 then it will not be reviewed, from the dates you have mentioned on your post you are outside the timeline and therefore your claim will not be reviewed.
Gary
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The following user(s) said Thank You: Alex
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: Gordon, Gary, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, Chris, David