DWP ESA PIP APPEALS MOBILITY
There have been two conflicting decisions about who qualifies for points in relation to the mobility activity ‘Planning and following journeys’. You can read more about this here.
If you have to appeal on this point and find that in their submission the DWP are pushing for the decision that they prefer to be followed by the tribunal, you can send in this submission in response. The tribunal are free to choose whichever decision they wish, both have equal force in law and they do not have to accept the arguments we have put forward..
But the submission below gives them good grounds to follow Judge Agnew if they wish and may give you good grounds to appeal to the upper tribunal if they choose not to and your appeal is unsuccessful as a result.
Name
Tribunal Ref No:
NINO:
Hearing: Date and Time
Venue:
Date of decision being challenged:
PIP Appeal submission
We note that the Secretary of State has asked the tribunal to follow the decision of Judge Jacobs in DA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions UK/0622/2015 in relation to the mobility activity ‘Planning and following journeys’. In this decision, Judge Jacobs held that mobility descriptor 1d ‘deals with navigation and excludes dealing with other difficulties that may be encountered along the way.’ By extension this would also apply to descriptor 1f.
We would submit that this decision should not be followed because it contains material errors of law.
Instead, we would request that the tribunal follow the decision in RC v Secretary of State CSPIP/109/2015 in which Judge Agnew held that a claimant who cannot follow a route ‘without the assistance of another person, dog or other aid, whatever that reason’ may score points for descriptor 1d or 1f.
Getting lost is a difficulty with following the route
At paragraph 14, Judge Jacobs argues that:
“Difficulties that may arise during the journey, such as getting lost and asking directions or encountering crowds, are not difficulties with following the route. They may prevent the claimant getting back onto the route if lost or finding an alternative route to avoid some obstacle, but those are different matters. “
We would submit that ‘getting lost’ is absolutely a difficulty with following a route. If a claimant frequently, or the majority of the time, gets lost when attempting to follow a route then it can reasonably be said that they ‘Cannot follow the route’ of a journey. This will be even more the case if they are unable to ask for directions from strangers due to anxiety.
We submit that in finding that ‘getting lost and asking for directions’ are not difficulties in following the route of a journey, the judge has erred in law.
Safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and in a reasonable time
The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013 No 455) amending regulation 4 of the 2013 Regulations) came into force in April 2013. They set out that a claimant satisfies a descriptor if they are unable to carry out an activity:
(a) safely;
(b) to an acceptable standard;
(c) repeatedly; and
(d) in a reasonable time period.
We would submit that ‘Difficulties that may arise during the journey, such as getting lost and asking directions or encountering crowds’ may very well prevent a claimant from following a route safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and in a reasonable time period.
If a claimant gets lost and is unable to ask for directions they may very well take a great deal longer to follow the route, may suffer considerable harm to their mental health and may be unable to follow the same route again for some considerable period of time.
Likewise, if a claimant has a fear of crowds and does encounter a crowd along the route they may no longer be able to follow the route because they can no longer concentrate or even remember the route.
We would submit that in failing to consider these issues, the judge erred in law.
For the above reasons we therefore request that the tribunal follow the decision of Judge Agnew in this regard.
