Anyone had because you can drive a manual car.....

Just wondering if anyone else has had the claim by ATOS that because a claimant can drive a manual car (even if you don't drive very far - doctors appointments etc) that you can manage complex budgeting decisions? That is what you are up against in this ridiculous assessment process. What next, because you can read a book, you can cook a meal? Anyone else had any unbelievable 'reasons' by ATOS to deny people what they lawfully should be entitled to?

Because my husband can drive an automatic car adapted with a left foot accelerateor he can cook a meal,manage his own affairs ,has no mobility problems,no communication difficulties. He is now a miracle man since his assessment .I wonder
why I have been caring for him constantly for the last 30 years.and he has been unable to work.I wonder why as driving a car makes him so capable His mobility car has been returned ????

braveheart wrote: Just wondering if anyone else has had the claim by ATOS that because a claimant can drive a manual car (even if you don't drive very far - doctors appointments etc) that you can manage complex budgeting decisions? That is what you are up against in this ridiculous assessment process. What next, because you can read a book, you can cook a meal? Anyone else had any unbelievable 'reasons' by ATOS to deny people what they lawfully should be entitled to?

Yes I did Braveheart. But with regards to my mobility and physical strength... grip, power in upper and lower body. However, I see what Gordon means there is some merit to this thinking but I personally think it would be merit-able (if that’s I word lol) if one was driving a 30 yr old Volvo. I’m a shortie. Basically I’m right up to the steering wheel. My car as with all modern cars has power steering, springloaded gears ... is that the terminology?… and hardly need to tap the clutch to change gears. Equally with the gutsy breaks and accelerator. Gripping the steering wheel is more of a firm gentle hold to pass/pull the power steering wheel round.
I got this observation in my DWP appeal letter with tribunal bundle...they’d not brought this up in any other decision and I think they’re clutching a straws now. I too don’t drive often and only local. I had to terminate my motability scheme vehicle and I’m very fortunate my partner bought a little 12yr old, two door Yaris for me to get about or I’d be tearing my hair out. Good luck with your claim.

Im sorry Gordon but I do not agree. Lets face it, the whole PIP assessment procedure is not fit for purpose. Stating that an award should be given if it applies for the majority of days just does not mean that when it comes to assessment. You say that there is some merit in my example of driving a car. Sorry, I disagree. If my mental health condition means that on the majority of days I need help with something like complex budgeting decisions, my ability to be able to go out and use my car to go to hospital or the GP on just a few days a month, even then if I am able to do so, should not dismiss my meeting for the criteria. If the rules of the majority of days really did mean anything for PIP, then it would be feasible to state that you feel mentally able to be able to drive for 14 days of the month as it is the minority of the time. If you said that to an assessor you may as well rip your claim up and throw it in the bin. Even if you had loads of psychiatric reports stating that you have a mental health condition that severely restricts your abilities to carry out tasks unaided for the majority of the time, the assessor would never, ever take that into account, and yet the criteria is for most days. The assessment, and appeal system is massively flawed and not fit for purpose. It is disgraceful how vulnerable people are being forced into hardship when they should be given an award based on the majority of the time. I think that if they want to play that game, then PIP should be awarded on being unable to carry out a task for 95% of the time because any assessor would be looking at that sort of ratio. Another example is your health conditions being dismissed because you may have shaved on the day of the assessment. Ridiculous. You may have been able to shave that day but for the next 20 days you couldn't. Do you suggest that people should not shave even if they feel they are able to on that day, just to make a point?