PIP MR

Hi Perdita

It's impossible to give any sort of definitive answer without knowing the context. It could be argued that someone with severe arthritis in their fingers may take a long time to do up the buttons on a cardigan; they may not do them up correctly, may require assistance, and may not be able to undo them because of the pain. In this case, you may be able to argue about them not being able to get dressed in a timely fashion and argue about their ability to repeat the action (eg undoing the buttons).

BIS

Hi Perdita,
This point was answered in the following case -
PE-v- SSWP [2015] UKUT 309 (AAC)
Basically if you only wear pull on clothes because of disability eg inability to close buttons etc then you should score points - this is deemed that you need an aid (or alternatively shows you need help.)
DWP can't deny points by saying you can wear baggy clothes etc. There is a 'principle of normality' this comes from a case called 'Fairey'. This established that disabled people (for benefits purposes) have a right to lead as normal a life as their disability allows. There has been a series of cases involving various descriptors following PE where DWP have ignored avoidance of performing PIP tasks. Avoidance due to disability must be taken into consideration and is likely to show the need for some form of assistance, and hence points should be scored.
I hope this helps.
LL26

Hi Perdita,
In respect of dressing. In my view, clothing that is put on and not fastened (due to disability) will not comprise an acceptable standard. Shoes could fall off and cause a slip or trip hazard. Normal standards if decency also suggest clothing should be fastened. As a result doing up buttons and zips is an integral part of dressing and undressing in reverse.
Since there is no reason (principle of normality) that someone shouldn't look smart by wearing eg button up shirts, then if you take X4 longer that is clearly not a 'reasonable time'. If there is some sort of aid that could reasonably used (and by such use, the claimant remains safe, acceptable and in time) then that could be argued. If no appropriate gadget exists (to facilitate the claimant and his own personal disabilities,) or nothing actually works, then it is likely you could argue the need for assistance for either lower or upper body clothing as appropriate or if both apply then the higher value of upper body would be the correct score..

Cooking aids - the PiP test considers whether some form of assistance is required. This doesn't mean you have to have actual physical help or use an aid etc. It's just that your disability is such that you need the help etc.
If the claimant either needs supervision to help with chopping or could use a suitable gadget, and this would have to be an actual thing not an imaginary possible thing, then he should score points in accordance with the type of help required. Don't worry about a named physical disability in the hands; many autistic people have poor coordination and lack spatial awareness. You might find further information about this eg on a national charity website eg National Autistic Society. However, the previous OT report shows problems with coordination etc and there is no reason why you need to provide any other evidence. (DWP often ignore perfectly valid evidence with our reason.) At present the claimant first not cook or prepare food. Ready meals do not satisfy the test. The reason for this is safety . If a real gadget can ensure safety then an aid/appliance is the correct value. Otherwise the only way to stay safe is to be supervised.

Bathing - the test requires an ability to take both baths AND showers. If the claimant would wish to have a morning shower, either through force if habit or eg because it relieves overnight muscle stiffness, then this would fall into the principle of normality, and, if bathing can only be done at certain times then this would suggest an ability to repeat the task across the day. Falling asleep in the bath is unsafe. This would indicate a need for supervision.
Evening bath takes an hour. I think this is tricky. Many people take lengthy baths. However if the reason is eg an inability to get out, then this could indicate a need for help or supervision.

Any carer, friend or relative who knows the claimant can provide a statement. Nothing wrong with this and could provide very important evidence. State what help is required and why. What happens (or doesn't!) when no help is there. Explain accidents, poor behaviour, anxiety attacks, fatigue, pain etc that occur and help provided to reduce these things. As long as the statement deals with disabilities that existed at the time of the claim, it to confirm ongoing worsening symptoms then the statement will be allowed and relevant. ( Normally a tribunal, like DWP needs to focus in disability existing at the time of the claim, but they also need to look at 9 months after that, so evidence of if increasing poor health is relevant to show that, and the very fact that health has deteriorated also shows a serious problem and not the minor or 'non-disability' that DWP often allegedly, without any evidence.

If you can provide good solid arguments then the claimant has every chance of success at MR or subsequent tribunal. Unfortunately DWP rarely seem to revise at MR but they do occasionally. More often decisions are revised upon Appeal, but at tribunal there is a very good chance if success if you argue succinctly and carefully explain how the claimant's disabilities prevent him completing PIP descriptor activities to a 'reliable' standard.
I hope this helps.
LL26