Mark
Activity 11 – Planning and following journeys
This activity considers a claimant’s ability to plan and follow the route of a journey. It is
useful separately to consider:
• ability to plan the route of a journey in advance
• ability to leave the home and embark on a journey and
• ability to follow the intended route once they leave the home.
This activity is designed for limitations on mobility deriving from mental health,
cognitive and sensory impairments, whereas activity 12 is designed for limitations from
physical problems. Cognitive impairment includes orientation (understanding of where,
when and who the person is), attention, concentration and memory. Any issues with
the ability to stand and then move are not applicable under activity 11.
11d or 11f only apply where a claimant could not reliably make their way along a route
without an accompanying person, assistance dog or orientation aid. The presence of
another person for reassurance, or out of preference, is not sufficient.
While a claimant who needs to be accompanied by another person to avoid
overwhelming psychological distress (OPD) cannot satisfy 11d or 11f on that ground, it
is possible that the same underlying condition (e.g. bipolar disorder, psychotic
illnesses) may cause cognitive impairment too (either intermittently, when making
journeys, or more generally). If that is the case, then a claimant may satisfy 11d or 11f
on grounds that, without being accompanied by another person, they could not reliably
make their way along the route because of the cognitive impairment.
11f may apply, where a claimant regularly experiences uncontrolled or unpredictable
seizures which result in prolonged confusion and disorientation so that they need to be
accompanied (on the majority of days) in order to make their way safely along even a
familiar route.
11d For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot follow the route
of an unfamiliar journey without another person, assistance dog or
orientation aid.
11f For reasons other than psychological distress, cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid.
Uncertainty about the extent to which overwhelming psychological distress could be taken into account when interpreting descriptors in mobility activity 1(d) and 1(f) ‘planning and following a journey’ a three Judge panel of the Upper Tribunal gave their decision in MH v SSWP [2016] UKUT 531 (AAC) on 28/11/16. The panel in MH decided that psychological distress could, in some circumstances, be taken into account when considering an ability to plan and follow a journey. The government sought to overturn the effect of the judgment by publishing amending regulations to exclude claimants whose mobility issues resulted from overwhelming psychological distress. However, the High Court decision in RF v SSWP & Ors [2017] EWHC 3375 quashed the amending regulations leaving the MH decision as the leading authority on the issue.
The Upper Tribunal judgment on 28 November 2016 and the subsequent High Court ruling in December 2017 confirmed the need to consider psychological distress when assessing this descriptor. The government’s decision to implement the Upper Tribunal decision in June 2018, as such would find it hard to remove. but the government could (I guess) disallow entry to the Motability scheme if a claimant scored 12 points in this sector not as it would gain anything by doing so.