Have you been affected by the 20m rule in PIP? Lost your higher rate mobility in a transfer from DLA to PIP? Lost your motability vehicle?
Has this affected your ability to leave your home to get to places, and take part in community, volunteering or work? Do you think your mobility needs were unfairly assessed in a PIP assessment?
Thanks to a recent House of Lords motion by Baronness Thomas of Winchester, there’s a chance to make the government rethink the notorious “20 metre” rule for qualifying for the Enhanced Rate Mobility component of Personal Independence Payments (PIP).
We need case studies of people affected by this 20m rule for DWP officials* to examine its fairness and its impact on people’s lives. Please note, you must be willing to disclose your National Insurance number, so that details of your case can be looked into. Please write to Baronness Thomas at email@example.com
The 20m rule, not included in the original consultation on PIP, restricts eligibility for the mobility component for people with severe walking difficulties from the previous 50m benchmark used in DLA down to 20m.
There is no evidence that people who can walk more than 20m but less than 50m face lower costs for mobility and transport than those who cannot walk 20m. This aspect of PIP means disabled people who would have qualified for the Higher Rate mobility component under DLA lose £33.25 per week or access to their Motability vehicle.
The House of Lords motion – April 2016
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: to move to resolve that this House calls on Her Majesty’s Government to hold urgent talks with Disability Rights UK and the Disability Benefits Consortium to identify a mobility criterion in the Personal Independence Payment “moving around” assessment which is fairer than the current 20 metre distance, in the light of the impact on reassessed disabled claimants and the resulting large number of successful appeals.
Please write to Baronness Thomas, with details of your case and your NI number if you can help, at firstname.lastname@example.org
Thanks, from the Spartacus team.
*Update 18.06.16 Apologies for the previous error in the post, which read “Dept of Health” officials.