|
answer text |
<p>The High Court judgment on 21 December 2017 refers to the successful challenge
by judicial review of the 2017 amending regulation which had reversed the effect of
the MH Upper Tribunal (UT) decision. This decision, handed down on 28 November 2016
related to how overwhelming psychological distress should be considered when assessing
a claimant’s ability to plan and follow a journey under PIP mobility activity 1.</p><p>
</p><p>As outlined in the Written Statement of 25 June 2018 (HLWS767) my Department
is currently carrying out an administrative exercise to identify anyone who may be
entitled to more support under Personal Independence Payment (PIP) as a result of
the MH UT decision. At the same time, case managers will be considering the RJ decision,
which concerns the way the Department assesses whether claimants can complete a PIP
activity safely and if supervision is required.</p><p> </p><p>As outlined in the written
statement of 20 December 2018 (HCWS1224), as at 23 November 2018, 140,000 cases had
been reviewed and cleared and around 1,000 claimants had received payments. Given
the complexity of the exercise we have started at a relatively small scale to test
our processes to ensure they are effective before ramping up.</p><p> </p><p>Under
this administrative exercise we are reviewing decisions made by the Department where
the claimant was in receipt of PIP at the date of the Upper Tribunal decisions (MH,
28th November 2016 and RJ, 9th March 2017) and those who have had a decision made
on their PIP claim since those dates. We will also be reviewing claims disallowed
after these decisions.</p><p> </p><p>All claimants will be notified if we have reviewed
their case. Claimants do not need to contact the Department at this stage.</p>
|
|