× Members

PIP "cannot" descriptors - does regulation 4(2A) apply?

More
1 day 1 hour ago #305830 by Heisenberg
Hi all,

Does does regulation 4(2A) apply to the "cannot" descriptors? I think I have come across some case law on this issue, and I am worried that it does not.

So, for example, if someone takes 3 times as long to dress or undress any part of their body due to their health problem(s), does that mean that the descriptor "Cannot dress or undress at all" applies?

Sincere thanks.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 hours 9 minutes ago #305862 by LL26
Hi Heisenberg,
To answer your question-yes! I will explain this further.
Basically Reg 4(2A) often called the reliability criteria provides a an alternative way of achieving points.
Most of the descriptors are cumulative, some look at different tasks of a similar nature within a set. Others such as Managing therapy offer more points according to time spent.

The way I consider each descriptor is as follows.
First can you actually do the task - this is often a simple yes no. Reading is good example. Can yoy read - yes, (I don't have learning or visual difficulties. I don't have any cognitive issues) Or alternatively I am totally blind I can not see to read I can't do this. Both these states are easy and don't need further discussion. So to continue with the same example , the claimant says I have trouble with reading.
The next question to ask is whether a simple aid or other gadget (appliance) would help. Maybe a magnifying glass? Maybe using an overlay if you have dyslexia? If that works then you can score 2 points. If you ask would an aid work and the answer is no, I need help from a person. What sort of help?
If the person can fill in the gaps and read some of the words the claimant can't then the claimant could score for needing help at basic or complex level according to need.
But....
What if the help from the aid or person takes too long? What if the claimant has very poor sight and really can't see? The assistant under Reading descriptor 8 needs to prompt or encourage or explain. If the assistant reads the whole of eg the letter, then the claimant isn't reading at all. So may be the assistant takes a different stance, he says 'What's this word...what letter does it start with. ..it's looks like a snake...so that's S for snake, what comes next...?' This is going to take a long time! Far too long so it's outside a reasonable time. Assistance can't help. So the only alternative is the last descriptor of the set.
Another example using walking ability. Significant pain may comprise not acceptable standard. If you are not 'acceptable' then you can't fulfil any of the specified distances, and therefore even though you can walk a bit for PIP your walking ability will be zero.
Having poor visibility os a good example about cooking ability. If you can't see properly it will never be safe using a knife. However, if you can't dmsee the cooker dial, can't see if good is cooked properly, can't see to drain vegetables even using a slotted spoon, what part of the cooking process can you do safely? Very little! And if the assistant effectively becomes the chef, then you cannot prepare and cook food. Similarly if fatigue is the problem, (and this causes you to drop knives or pots etc) then again it is likely the assistant will be the cook. Perhaps you can cook once a day, but not repeatedly? The assistant takes over again. In all of these examples one or more of the Reg 4(2A) criteria applies.
Thus looking at the 'majority of days,' per Reg 7 ( considering the aggregation rules if need be) the thought process for a claimant should be as follows for each set of tasks within the descriptor set
1.can I do this (reliably) safely, acceptably, repeatedly and timely for the majority of days?
2. If not, why not?
3. Would and aid etc help me to be 'reliable'
3. If no aid helps would another person help me be 'reliable' - what would they need to do,?
4. If the help provided is basically the whole task then I still can't do it.
5. If I'm still not reliable then I can't do the task.
Caselaw has confirmed reading, budgeting and planning journeys etc is cumulative. Other descriptors appear to be cumulative. Be aware that eg reading uses a list of types of reading separated by 'or' this usually means if you fail one part, rather than all 3 you can score. However for cooking the last descriptor is can not prepare AND cook food, so here is a bit of a blackhole you need to show that you can't do both elements.
For dressing, I think the same applies. Can not dress or undress has to mean that assistance for BOTH lower as well as upper body doesn't work either because you actually can't dress etc or you are still "unreliable' with the help, for the majority of days.
I hope this helps.
LL26

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.

Moderators: GordonlatetrainBISCatherineWendyKellygreekqueenpeterKatherineSuper UserChrisDavid