If this is your first visit, check out the community guide. You will have to Join us or Sign in before you can post.

Mobility Descriptor 11 e/f

cat170685cat170685 Posts: 11Member Listener
edited February 13 in PIP, DLA and AA
Although I've never registered on this site before it has been a great source of information and the input / advice from others is second to none; in saying that I would really like some advice regarding the situation i currently find myself in. 

I will try to keep the post specific and to the point.

December 2016 - Completed PIP application, awarded Enhanced Daily Living, Zero points motability

August 2018 - Requested intervention, was advised that due to the change in law my mental health issues should be reconsidered.

October 2018 - Home visit by assessor from Capita 

December 2018 - Was downgraded from High Rate Daily Living to Standard Rate, Awarded standard rate motability.

January 2019 - Requested mandatory reconsideration

February 2019 - After MR was awarded Higher rate daily living and standard rate motability.

I called the PIP number and asked for an explanation as to how they decided that I was only entitled to descripitor 11(e) rather than 11(f) - They advised me the reason I was not awarded descriptor f (Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid) was because I didn't leave the house enough to justify been awarded the higher rate. 

So I'm asking for some advice, surly whether I leave the house once a week or ten times a day - the fact that I need someone to accompany me for my own well being should be the information they base their decision on? If i only leave the house for vital appointments should not have an affect on my disability? 

Basically what I was advised was the reason I didn't qualify for the (f) was because I didn't leave the house as often as they would like?

See below for reply from capita after a case manager from PIP asked for clarification for the mandatory reconsideration

START**

All 16 available attachments of evidence reviewed. 
DA response advice: 
All evidence has been reviewed. The HOC reports Depression/ Anxiety and Schizophrenia, with significant specialist input, medication and recent suicidal action. The IOS / MSE, SOH and FE are consistent with low mood, signs of OPD, anxiety and lack of motivation. Medications are significant for mental health and only partially effective. While the MSE reports being well nourished, the FH and PIP2 in regards to act 2 are consistent with needing prompting continually to complete a meal which is consistent with his low mood and previous assessments. While it is acknowledged that the PIP2 indicates going into shopping centre, it also states only going out when necessary. The FH reports symptoms of OPD when out and the SOH indicates only leaving the house for medical appointments a/hich usually occur once a week. Therefore there is insufficient evidence to support that he leaves the home the majority of days and for that reason 11e appears appropriate. 
Change to 2d only, no other change.

END**

Replies

  • Antonia_ScopeAntonia_Scope Posts: 1,334Member, Administrator Scope community team
    Hi @cat170685 thank you for sharing this with us and your kind words.

    Hopefully some of our members may be able to answer your questions soon. 
  • Pipquestions2Pipquestions2 Posts: 20Member Whisperer
    This is what ilovecats said to me regarding this. Not sure if it's of any help.

    What do these acronyms mean / MSE, SOH and FE?



    Poppy has this really clearly and given you the same that advice I, and others with a thorough, clinical understanding of PIP would give so I would suggest you re-read it.

    For mental health conditions it is very hard to score under Activity 11 as Overwhelming psychological distress must be present.

    You need to think about whether you fit the OPD criteria before trying to claim points under this activity. 

    If you are able to leave the house, even needing someone, and turn up at a face to face assessment and answer the questions it is highly unlikely you will satisfy the criteria for OPD. You would (unfortunately) literally having to be suffering a severe and constant panic attack throughout the whole assessment. Just feeling terrible and panicky on the inside won't score. Just wanting someone with you because they are you are anxious is not enough to satisfy the criteria for OPD. 

    Some tips.
    If you can go out at least once in a day, most days then it's not 11E
    If you can go out but only with another person due to OPD then it's not 11E , it is 11F.

    It won't be 11F, if you cannot go out on the majority of days due to OPD, therefore it jumps back a descriptor to 11E (this is where I think you are becoming confused). 

    If you choose not to use public transport due to anxiety, unless you become, overwhelming psychologically distressed then it's not 11D.
    If you know how to plan a journey e.g. on google map but cannot follow it due to OPD and someone has to be present at all times then it is 11D however, this must be because you cannot work out where to go and not because you feel a bit anxious and want someone there.
    If at any point you can leave the house e.g. to do the school run on your own, but then panic at the thought of going to the shop, it would be 11A, because you have left the house once on your own without prompting.

    It is very harsh, but this changes came about as a result of many complaints where people thought they weren't scoring highly enough, which now means that where a lot of MH suffers could have fallen into a B, they now fit the A criteria as it has been made stricter, and more focus has been put on OPD.

    If you have hard evidence from your psychologist/psychiatrist that states that their professional medical opinion is that you can't go out and the reason why, then that would be a good piece of evidence to back up a higher descriptor claim.
    Evidence which just rehashes something that you have said, "Ms xxx states that they can't do . . . " will not cut it because that is what the HCP's hear from you in the functional history assessment at the interview. 

    I know I've rambled but I hope that makes sense and has helped a little bit!

  • cat170685cat170685 Posts: 11Member Listener
    thanks for the replies folks, really appreciate it. Does anyone actually know the criteria for 'majority' of days? 
  • Pipquestions2Pipquestions2 Posts: 20Member Whisperer
    edited February 12
    cat170685 said:
    thanks for the replies folks, really appreciate it. Does anyone actually know the criteria for 'majority' of days? 
    Was @ilovecats that wrote that I'm just copy pasting. 

    As for the majority that would be 4 out of 7 days. 8 out of 14. 183 out of 365.  I'm not sure on the time period they're looking for but I imagine it's on the long end of the stick 

  • ilovecatsilovecats Posts: 521Member Chatterbox
    cat170685 said:
    thanks for the replies folks, really appreciate it. Does anyone actually know the criteria for 'majority' of days? 
    Was @ilovecats that wrote that I'm just copy pasting. 

    As for the majority that would be 4 out of 7 days. 8 out of 14. 183 out of 365.  I'm not sure on the time period they're looking for but I imagine it's on the long end of the stick 

    No worries. I’m glad the info is being shared for all to see and benefit from

    To whoever asked:
    MSE - mental state examination
    SOH - social and occupational jistory
    FE - further evidence 
  • poppy123456poppy123456 Posts: 8,466Member, Community champion Brian Blessed
    cat170685 said:
    thanks for the replies folks, really appreciate it. Does anyone actually know the criteria for 'majority' of days? 
    It's at least 50% of the time over a 12 month period.
  • cat170685cat170685 Posts: 11Member Listener
    Does anyone know is it possible to request a MR of a decision change that was the result of an initial MR? i.e Can I ask for a mandatory reconsideration of a mandatory reconsideration if this time i will be providing further medical evidence. \
    Im also wondering is it possible for me to lodge an appeal at the tribunal based on the MR that I have received whilst asking them to look at the case again based on further evidence been produced? I can only assume that the DwC(Northern Ireland) case manager will probably realise I have a strong case should it go to the tribunal and perhaps might save all parties time and effort of the tribunal process?


  • sparkle22sparkle22 Posts: 31Member Listener
    Hi @cat170685 can I ask why you had the 'intervention' in aug 18, was that at their request or yours and what was the purpose?
  • ilovecatsilovecats Posts: 521Member Chatterbox
    cat170685 said:
    Does anyone know is it possible to request a MR of a decision change that was the result of an initial MR? i.e Can I ask for a mandatory reconsideration of a mandatory reconsideration if this time i will be providing further medical evidence. \
    Im also wondering is it possible for me to lodge an appeal at the tribunal based on the MR that I have received whilst asking them to look at the case again based on further evidence been produced? I can only assume that the DwC(Northern Ireland) case manager will probably realise I have a strong case should it go to the tribunal and perhaps might save all parties time and effort of the tribunal process?


    If you are appealing the 11E decision, from my experience it sounds like they made the right call. If you are not going out the majority of days then 11F cannot apply so I wouldn't waste your time. If its something else then it would be appeal. You cannot MR an MR so to speak

  • sparkle22sparkle22 Posts: 31Member Listener
    The reason I ask, is that the DWP said no one would lose money or have the full award looked at if they asked for the mobility to be checked based on the change of law, so if that was the reason for your intervention I would get advice. If it was an intervention for any other reason, and you asked for mobility to be checked at the same time, then that is different.


  • poppy123456poppy123456 Posts: 8,466Member, Community champion Brian Blessed
    edited March 5
    cat170685 said:
    Does anyone know is it possible to request a MR of a decision change that was the result of an initial MR? i.e Can I ask for a mandatory reconsideration of a mandatory reconsideration if this time i will be providing further medical evidence. \
    Im also wondering is it possible for me to lodge an appeal at the tribunal based on the MR that I have received whilst asking them to look at the case again based on further evidence been produced? I can only assume that the DwC(Northern Ireland) case manager will probably realise I have a strong case should it go to the tribunal and perhaps might save all parties time and effort of the tribunal process?


    No, you can't request an MR of the MR decision. Once you have the MR decision if you disagree then it's Tribunal for your next step.
  • CockneyRebelCockneyRebel Posts: 4,888Member, Community champion Brian Blessed
    When you asked for your MR did you inform them that you would be summiting further evidence ?
    Be all you can be, make  every day count. Namaste
  • cat170685cat170685 Posts: 11Member Listener
    I’m appealing it on two basis:

    1. I will be submitting further evidence from GP’s
    2. That I do go out the majority of the days over a longer period. The fact that my assessment was carried out the day after I was discharged  from the psychiatric hospital I would not have been leaving home but for appointments as my mood at that time was low. I did say during my initial assessment that I did leave and go out, I even said about going to the shopping centre etc but I would always need someone with me at all times to ensure my safety and to reduce the OPD. 



  • CockneyRebelCockneyRebel Posts: 4,888Member, Community champion Brian Blessed
    If at the time of requesting your MR you made it clear that you would be submitting new evidence then if the MR was carried out before they received it you can ask them to look at it again. However the likely outcome will still be the same
    Be all you can be, make  every day count. Namaste
  • wildlifewildlife Posts: 1,301Member Chatterbox
    You can't say it isn't possible to get them to look again after your MR because that's exactly what I managed to do in 2017. I had 2 MRs. DWP knew I'd complained about my assessment report because I told them in my first MR letter. So in the MR reasons for keeping my award the same it said they would be willing to look at my case again if I provided more evidence. This I did and a change was made at my 2nd MR. I'm not saying it would happen now 2 years on but it isn't impossible. 
    I also want to say from lots of experience of OPD that assessors can't possibly assess this. No other person no matter how much knowledge or training they have could get inside your head and measure the level of OPD you're experiencing. Their decision has to be based on lifestyle i.e. whether or not you set foot outside your house alone together with a medical history of mental health problems sufficient to make it likely you can't go out at all without suffering OPD. Just my experience of being awarded OPD 11f in 2017 which was what they changed at my 2nd MR. I was encouraged to apply for a tribunal while this was being looked at again but didn't need to.  
  • sparkle22sparkle22 Posts: 31Member Listener
    Something else I remember reading, if you don’t go out the majority of the time but it’s because you don’t have anyone to accompany you to avoid OPD, they have to take that into account. If that’s relevant in your case. 
  • cat170685cat170685 Posts: 11Member Listener
    sparkle22 said:
    Something else I remember reading, if you don’t go out the majority of the time but it’s because you don’t have anyone to accompany you to avoid OPD, they have to take that into account. If that’s relevant in your case. 
    That’s good to know sparkle. Thanks for your input. You wouldn’t happen to have a copy of your MR letter that I could use as a template 
  • poppy123456poppy123456 Posts: 8,466Member, Community champion Brian Blessed
    I wouldn't advise using anyone's MR letter as a template because they way your condition affects you maybe totally different to someone else's.
  • sparkle22sparkle22 Posts: 31Member Listener
    I didn’t have to do the MR, I was awarded after the f2f. But poppy is right, it’s best to do it yourself. Just go through and comment on each point you disagree with. Why you disagree and give examples. 
  • keirakeira Posts: 129Member Talkative
    If a person goes out 4-5 days a week (always accompanied due to OPD) but this is only for a short local walk or being driven to a family members home would this meet the criteria for 11F?
  • poppy123456poppy123456 Posts: 8,466Member, Community champion Brian Blessed
    wildlife said:
    You can't say it isn't possible to get them to look again
    No one said it was impossible.
  • ilovecatsilovecats Posts: 521Member Chatterbox
    keira said:
    If a person goes out 4-5 days a week (always accompanied due to OPD) but this is only for a short local walk or being driven to a family members home would this meet the criteria for 11F?
    Yes as long as you can prove you fit the OPD descriptor
  • wildlifewildlife Posts: 1,301Member Chatterbox
    edited March 6
    "No you cannot MR an MR"  and  "No you can't MR an MR decision" (see previous posts). To me this means it isn't possible. The assessment report results in a PA4, the MR a PA5 and there is a PA6 so not only is it possible it was planned for sometime when PIP was set up. I found the Decision Makers very keen to get things right but their hands were tied by having to rely on the recommendation of my assessor. I told 2 different DM's or CM's as they are now that I couldn't cope with the stress of going to tribunal. So long as they had new evidence to send back to ATOS they were happy to repeat the MR. As I said things may be different now but surely some of the DM's working for DWP in 2017 will still be there now. No harm in trying. But if posters here are told not to bother then they won't.  
  • cat170685cat170685 Posts: 11Member Listener
    When I asked them to look at my case again I do so advising them that I was requesting it based on the fact of the law change. So I'm surprised that they actually reviewed my entire PIP again and made their decision based on that. Im going to send in another MR with extra supporting evidence and hopefully they will consider it. 

    Thanks 
  • poppy123456poppy123456 Posts: 8,466Member, Community champion Brian Blessed
    When requesting the MR they will always look at the whole award again and not just part of it.
  • wildlifewildlife Posts: 1,301Member Chatterbox
    @cat170685 ; I only got a 2nd MR because they'd offered to look again after the first one. I also booked a call back from a Decision Maker and again the agreement was made. I didn't just send another MR so I hope you aren't disappointed if they refuse to accept any more evidence and just tell you to apply for Tribunal. I don't want you doing a lot of work because of what happened to me. 
  • poppy123456poppy123456 Posts: 8,466Member, Community champion Brian Blessed
    I would advise you to ring DWP to ask to speak to a case manager first, rather than just send in another MR request letter. I agree with @wildlife they may refuse if you do it the letter way.

    If you can't speak to a case manager straight away then you can request a call back.
  • sparkle22sparkle22 Posts: 31Member Listener
    I would ring as Poppy suggested and also ask why you have had your whole claim looked into, had another face to face and lost part of your daily living (initially) when you ONLY wanted the mobility looking at based on the change of law. I know its a bit late now, but it wouldn't do any harm to point this out to them, and that may help you to get them to look at your decision again. 

    Also wasnt 11E already considered for OPD? so if that is the descriptor they have now chosen, why didnt they give you that descriptor in the first place. I would try and argue that by not choosing that descriptor previously, when it was actually one of the few they could pick, they themselves ruled it out. But get professional advice on that.




  • ilovecatsilovecats Posts: 521Member Chatterbox
    sparkle22 said:
    I would ring as Poppy suggested and also ask why you have had your whole claim looked into, had another face to face and lost part of your daily living (initially) when you ONLY wanted the mobility looking at based on the change of law. I know its a bit late now, but it wouldn't do any harm to point this out to them, and that may help you to get them to look at your decision again. 

    Also wasnt 11E already considered for OPD? so if that is the descriptor they have now chosen, why didnt they give you that descriptor in the first place. I would try and argue that by not choosing that descriptor previously, when it was actually one of the few they could pick, they themselves ruled it out. But get professional advice on that.




    I believe the OP was awarded 11E but wants 11F. 

    Its been explained many times why F would not apply.
  • cat170685cat170685 Posts: 11Member Listener
    ilovecats said:
    sparkle22 said:
    I would ring as Poppy suggested and also ask why you have had your whole claim looked into, had another face to face and lost part of your daily living (initially) when you ONLY wanted the mobility looking at based on the change of law. I know its a bit late now, but it wouldn't do any harm to point this out to them, and that may help you to get them to look at your decision again. 

    Also wasnt 11E already considered for OPD? so if that is the descriptor they have now chosen, why didnt they give you that descriptor in the first place. I would try and argue that by not choosing that descriptor previously, when it was actually one of the few they could pick, they themselves ruled it out. But get professional advice on that.




    I believe the OP was awarded 11E but wants 11F. 

    Its been explained many times why F would not apply.
    Yes I was awarded 11E - but this was after the initial request to review my case under the law change. Therefore I do agree with sparkle in regards to stating that I should’ve been entitled to 11E from the outset but also as previously stated I’m disagreeing with not been awarded the 11F due to the timing of the f2f Assment when my mood was extremely low. But I do try and leave the house at lease once a day when I’m not in a low mood. 


  • ilovecatsilovecats Posts: 521Member Chatterbox
    cat170685 said:
    ilovecats said:
    sparkle22 said:
    I would ring as Poppy suggested and also ask why you have had your whole claim looked into, had another face to face and lost part of your daily living (initially) when you ONLY wanted the mobility looking at based on the change of law. I know its a bit late now, but it wouldn't do any harm to point this out to them, and that may help you to get them to look at your decision again. 

    Also wasnt 11E already considered for OPD? so if that is the descriptor they have now chosen, why didnt they give you that descriptor in the first place. I would try and argue that by not choosing that descriptor previously, when it was actually one of the few they could pick, they themselves ruled it out. But get professional advice on that.




    I believe the OP was awarded 11E but wants 11F. 

    Its been explained many times why F would not apply.
    Yes I was awarded 11E - but this was after the initial request to review my case under the law change. Therefore I do agree with sparkle in regards to stating that I should’ve been entitled to 11E from the outset but also as previously stated I’m disagreeing with not been awarded the 11F due to the timing of the f2f Assment when my mood was extremely low. But I do try and leave the house at lease once a day when I’m not in a low mood. 


    If you told them on the day that you do not go out because of your low mood and they had evidence to back it then you will not get 11F. The onus is on you to explain fluctuations but F cannot ever apply if E does. 

    Id try to be content with what you scored because scoring for 11 is hard. Generally to score F you have to be totally unable to function when you go out unaccompanied on the majority of days or have a high level of violent risk to yourself and others.
  • sparkle22sparkle22 Posts: 31Member Listener
    When requesting the MR they will always look at the whole award again and not just part of it.
    I just wanted to comment on this, there are exceptions to this, if you ask for a review and specifically state that it is ONLY the mobility you want looking at due to the change in law, then they will only look at mobility. Then if it goes to MR then they again will only look at mobility and cannot reduce your money eg if you get lower mobility and are trying for higher, you cannot lose the lower mobility. They cannot touch the daily living part of the claim. 

  • sparkle22sparkle22 Posts: 31Member Listener
    cat170685 said:
    ilovecats said:
    sparkle22 said:
    I would ring as Poppy suggested and also ask why you have had your whole claim looked into, had another face to face and lost part of your daily living (initially) when you ONLY wanted the mobility looking at based on the change of law. I know its a bit late now, but it wouldn't do any harm to point this out to them, and that may help you to get them to look at your decision again. 

    Also wasnt 11E already considered for OPD? so if that is the descriptor they have now chosen, why didnt they give you that descriptor in the first place. I would try and argue that by not choosing that descriptor previously, when it was actually one of the few they could pick, they themselves ruled it out. But get professional advice on that.




    I believe the OP was awarded 11E but wants 11F. 

    Its been explained many times why F would not apply.
    Yes I was awarded 11E - but this was after the initial request to review my case under the law change. Therefore I do agree with sparkle in regards to stating that I should’ve been entitled to 11E from the outset but also as previously stated I’m disagreeing with not been awarded the 11F due to the timing of the f2f Assment when my mood was extremely low. But I do try and leave the house at lease once a day when I’m not in a low mood. 


    Ilovecats, The point I was making is that 11E actually means the person has a LOWER level of functioning than 11F, they dont leave the house on the majority of days due to OPD. 11F they do leave the house accompanied on the majority of days. The only reason 11E is paid lower mobility is because the DWP say that someone who rarely goes out, has lower expenses than someone who needs to be accompanied the majority of the time (which is true).

    Around the time of Cats assessment in dec 2016 there were only a few descriptors available to assessors when dealing with a claimant with OPD, one was no points can go out unaided, one was 4 points for prompting and the other was 11E unable to go out due to OPD.  They either gave cat 0 or 4 points (I'm not sure as she hasnt stated exactly which points she received). But they DIDNT give her 11E which WAS available. Remember this isnt a new review, this a legal revision based on the fact that the other descriptors being taken off the table was illegal. So if she wasn't 11E in Dec 2006, when they assessed her, which is the most severely affected and a descriptor fully available for them to choose, how can they get away with saying in hindsight they are deciding she was, even though she is saying she wasnt.


  • AndyDurhamAndyDurham Posts: 16Member Whisperer
    I'm going through it right now with DWP and ATOS.  There is no argument about my ability to stand and walk aided or unaided 50 meters but no more then 200 meters though I'd argue the 50 meters on really bad days.  But because I drive short distances 5 days a week I dont qualify!!!  The shops are 400 meters away, the school for my kids is 1,000 meters away. I cannot get to them without driving and because driving causes me less pain then walking I get penalised.

    I'm a single father of 2. Am I not supposed to see my own family and to try and be a father as best as I can to my children?

    DWP have really annoyed me denied me in the first place which let's face it everyone does.  Ignored all added information on my mandatory request, ignored my request for a copy of the assessors report, made medical judgments saying that my upper body and spin is fine. Well in actual fact if they checked my medical records they'd see I've had DDD since 2004.  My lower spin or lumber was never assessed or they'd have seen that Its not as flexible as they make out.  I was also not given any psychological or cognitive testing which they claimed.  Furthermore he passed a comment saying that I'm on moderate medication.... er no I'm on the maximum dose for neurological pain how can that be moderate?

    I'm no waiting my tribunal date 

    But to be honest I dont blame Atos or DWP ....  I blame the conservatives 
  • Pippa_ScopePippa_Scope Posts: 5,858Member Brian Blessed
    Hi @AndyDurham, and a warm welcome to the community! 

    Thanks for sharing this with us, and I'm truly sorry to hear about your experiences. I know how frustrating it can be to feel that you're not being heard. I hope you find comfort in being among others who understand, and fingers crossed for a successful tribunal as soon as possible. Please do keep us updated!
  • AndyDurhamAndyDurham Posts: 16Member Whisperer
    Thank you Pippa I promise to keep you all informed my tribunal complaint is to the point and calling out the gentleman from the DWP for his comments.  Namely arguing that he's formulated his opinion without any consideration to the claimant and by his statements alone has demonstrated that he is acting without any skill or care.  It's an oldish tactic that seemed to fit my complaint, so I used it. I'm interested to find out if the direct confrontation has any effect on the DWP and there silly statements aimed at belittling the claimant.

    DWP scored me as a 6. I also went online and completed an online test using there guidelines.  My score was 15 and 8. Copied that into the letter to the tribunal and then wrote an explanation for each point.

    Took me two days to write a 4 page document but worth it I think lol 
  • keirakeira Posts: 129Member Talkative
    ilovecats said:
    keira said:
    If a person goes out 4-5 days a week (always accompanied due to OPD) but this is only for a short local walk or being driven to a family members home would this meet the criteria for 11F?
    Yes as long as you can prove you fit the OPD descriptor
    Thanks for the reply but I'm still a bit confused. Does the descriptor mean that a person has to experience severe panic attacks etc when they go out and need someone with them to help them calm down or have I got this wrong?
  • keirakeira Posts: 129Member Talkative
    @ilovecats Could you possibly help with my last query? Thanks.
  • ilovecatsilovecats Posts: 521Member Chatterbox
    keira said:
    ilovecats said:
    keira said:
    If a person goes out 4-5 days a week (always accompanied due to OPD) but this is only for a short local walk or being driven to a family members home would this meet the criteria for 11F?
    Yes as long as you can prove you fit the OPD descriptor
    Thanks for the reply but I'm still a bit confused. Does the descriptor mean that a person has to experience severe panic attacks etc when they go out and need someone with them to help them calm down or have I got this wrong?
    Overwhelming psychological distress is much more than a panic attack. It is the complete inability to function and loss of faculties 
  • keirakeira Posts: 129Member Talkative
    Thanks, so it means really crippling anxiety that takes over everything.
  • ilovecatsilovecats Posts: 521Member Chatterbox
    keira said:
    Thanks, so it means really crippling anxiety that takes over everything.
    Yes, that leaves you totally unable to function.
Sign in or join us to comment.