- Posts: 76
× Members
Perching stool
- Beragon
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
8 months 3 weeks ago #288308 by Beragon
Perching stool was created by Beragon
My flatmate had a phone call today from the DWP. We both spoke to her, nasty piece of work. To cut a long story short, we are at the appeal stage under PIP daily living. I am his flatmate and carer.
She said she was just checking a few things. She was really trying to trip him up and persuade him not to go any further.
He cannot cook a meal unaided and he explained that he needs me in the kitchen to help him. This should give him 4 points. Madam said that she would give him 2 points as he could use an AID, that is a perching stool. As he does not have a perching stool how can she say he needs to use it.
He also needs prompting to take his medication. This is 1 point. She agreed to this.
Like the cooking, he needs me to heave him in and out of the bath. 3 points. She said he could use an AID. I had already explained that we live in rented accommodation and the Landlord refused to give his permission for a hoist or anything like that. Besides the bathroom is too small. Again, as he does not have a hoist and could not get one, then how can she say that he could use one and only will only give 2 points.
These descriptors when added together make 8 points, which is what he needs to get the standard rate of daily living. She said she would award 5, no award.
I pointed out that he receives 12 points under moving around so surely she could see that he needs the help desribed under daily living. She was unmoved.
The date of the review was April 22, they say they lost the papers but when we pointed out that we had sent them recorded delivery, suddenly they were found.
However, since then he has fallen twice and broke both his arms. The one arm is now held together with titanium plates, the other a hairline fracture. I do not think he will ever get full mobility in the bad arm.
Is the assessment supposed to be based on how things were in April 22 or now? As you can imagine things are much worse now. He cannot even make a cup of tea!!!
Can you advise?
She said she was just checking a few things. She was really trying to trip him up and persuade him not to go any further.
He cannot cook a meal unaided and he explained that he needs me in the kitchen to help him. This should give him 4 points. Madam said that she would give him 2 points as he could use an AID, that is a perching stool. As he does not have a perching stool how can she say he needs to use it.
He also needs prompting to take his medication. This is 1 point. She agreed to this.
Like the cooking, he needs me to heave him in and out of the bath. 3 points. She said he could use an AID. I had already explained that we live in rented accommodation and the Landlord refused to give his permission for a hoist or anything like that. Besides the bathroom is too small. Again, as he does not have a hoist and could not get one, then how can she say that he could use one and only will only give 2 points.
These descriptors when added together make 8 points, which is what he needs to get the standard rate of daily living. She said she would award 5, no award.
I pointed out that he receives 12 points under moving around so surely she could see that he needs the help desribed under daily living. She was unmoved.
The date of the review was April 22, they say they lost the papers but when we pointed out that we had sent them recorded delivery, suddenly they were found.
However, since then he has fallen twice and broke both his arms. The one arm is now held together with titanium plates, the other a hairline fracture. I do not think he will ever get full mobility in the bad arm.
Is the assessment supposed to be based on how things were in April 22 or now? As you can imagine things are much worse now. He cannot even make a cup of tea!!!
Can you advise?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 51290
8 months 3 weeks ago #288340 by Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic Perching stool
B
Forgive me but I need to deal with the issues that you raise in a different order from your post.
First, as you are now at the appeal stage, the Tribunal Panel can legally only deal with your flatmate's conditions and limitations as they were when they were assessed, from your post this was 04/22.
You cannot introduce changes to his problems in regard to the appeal or you risk the DWP challenging any favourable result, you must deal with the problems he had not has.
So to the Perching Stool. The issue being assessed is whether an aid such as a Perching Stool would reasonably allow your flatmate to prepare a meal, possession of the aid is not considered. There are two approaches to dealing with this issue.
First, can he use a Perching Stool? People with lower back or hip problems are often unable to remain on a stool for any meaningful time does he have these? Secondly, even if he had the use of a stool would this allow them to prepare and cook a simple meal, if there are other issues preventing him from doing so then these should also be mentioned.
Now to the problems getting in and out of a bath. Did the person from the DWP specifically mention a winch? If they did then your practical concerns about using ones should counter their arguments, a Tribunal panel will be more amenable to such arguments.
If they did not then you need to consider other such aids that could achieve the same, for example; there are inflatable seats that can be used which only require access to a power point. If his problems with getting in and out of a bath are more fundamental then you should concentrate on explaining these undermining the assessor's views on an aid.
Are there any other activities that your flatmate might have scored for but didn't? You need a plan B in case the panel does not agree with your submission and evidence.
As to his situation now. As he does not have an award he can make a new claim for PIP, doing so will create what is called a Closed Decision in regard to the appeal, any revised Decision will only hold sway until the date of the new claim after which the Decision from the new claim will take effect but it could still be to his advantage.
Gordon
Forgive me but I need to deal with the issues that you raise in a different order from your post.
First, as you are now at the appeal stage, the Tribunal Panel can legally only deal with your flatmate's conditions and limitations as they were when they were assessed, from your post this was 04/22.
You cannot introduce changes to his problems in regard to the appeal or you risk the DWP challenging any favourable result, you must deal with the problems he had not has.
So to the Perching Stool. The issue being assessed is whether an aid such as a Perching Stool would reasonably allow your flatmate to prepare a meal, possession of the aid is not considered. There are two approaches to dealing with this issue.
First, can he use a Perching Stool? People with lower back or hip problems are often unable to remain on a stool for any meaningful time does he have these? Secondly, even if he had the use of a stool would this allow them to prepare and cook a simple meal, if there are other issues preventing him from doing so then these should also be mentioned.
Now to the problems getting in and out of a bath. Did the person from the DWP specifically mention a winch? If they did then your practical concerns about using ones should counter their arguments, a Tribunal panel will be more amenable to such arguments.
If they did not then you need to consider other such aids that could achieve the same, for example; there are inflatable seats that can be used which only require access to a power point. If his problems with getting in and out of a bath are more fundamental then you should concentrate on explaining these undermining the assessor's views on an aid.
Are there any other activities that your flatmate might have scored for but didn't? You need a plan B in case the panel does not agree with your submission and evidence.
As to his situation now. As he does not have an award he can make a new claim for PIP, doing so will create what is called a Closed Decision in regard to the appeal, any revised Decision will only hold sway until the date of the new claim after which the Decision from the new claim will take effect but it could still be to his advantage.
Gordon
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.
- Beragon
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 76
8 months 3 weeks ago #288365 by Beragon
Replied by Beragon on topic Perching stool
Thank you Gordon,
You can really take a very complicated system and turn it into something understandable. I thank you for it.
I understand now about the perching stool and the winch ( hoist )
As regarding the fall and the broken arms. The first fall was in September last year, the second at Christmas. The first fall was down the stairs and is the worst as the titanium plates put in then were decided to be put in wrongly . He was reoperated on 29th January.
The thing is I told this DWP person about in during the phone call. I wish I had not now. She asked if I was changing the claim to say it was the broken arms that were causing the problems. I said no and that he had had the problems since his appeal date in 4/22.
Was that the right thing to do?
And of course the reason he falls is because of the problems with his feet.
Can I reconnect with you when the letter she said she would post arrives and ask you what to do about the broken arms in more detail
Thank you Gordon. I am sorry to be so much trouble.
You can really take a very complicated system and turn it into something understandable. I thank you for it.
I understand now about the perching stool and the winch ( hoist )
As regarding the fall and the broken arms. The first fall was in September last year, the second at Christmas. The first fall was down the stairs and is the worst as the titanium plates put in then were decided to be put in wrongly . He was reoperated on 29th January.
The thing is I told this DWP person about in during the phone call. I wish I had not now. She asked if I was changing the claim to say it was the broken arms that were causing the problems. I said no and that he had had the problems since his appeal date in 4/22.
Was that the right thing to do?
And of course the reason he falls is because of the problems with his feet.
Can I reconnect with you when the letter she said she would post arrives and ask you what to do about the broken arms in more detail
Thank you Gordon. I am sorry to be so much trouble.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 51290
8 months 3 weeks ago #288372 by Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic Perching stool
B
Not including the broken arms now was the right thing to do as the breaks occurred after the Decision being appealed was made, it would just undermine his appeal to include something which so obviously could not be considered.
Yes, come back to the forum if you need more help.
Gordon
Not including the broken arms now was the right thing to do as the breaks occurred after the Decision being appealed was made, it would just undermine his appeal to include something which so obviously could not be considered.
Yes, come back to the forum if you need more help.
Gordon
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: Gordon, Gary, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, Chris, David