PIP and “Average” Walking Speeds

I would get more into the specifics of reliably. Is it the time taken; safety; repeatability etc.

I would wholly disregard DWP guidance. It is just that but also, on a very fundamental level, it’s simply wrong. There is no average walking speed in any meaningful sense. Average walking speed varies with age, gender and physique. See https://www.healthline.com/health/exercise-fitness/average-walking-speed and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking as (admittedly overly simplistic) starting points.

I don’t see how Capita even get to have a say in PIP guidance let alone how they acquired knowledge on walking. That’s very much the tail wagging the dog and an organisation who, well, where to start… how about… https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cm6pmmerd28t/capita

I hadn’t noticed this but that is what it says. However, there is an internal contradiction with the worked examples of Mr X and Mr Y. Mr X is said to take three minutes to walk 200 metres and ” Although a little slower than
normal, this is a reasonable time period for someone to walk 200 metres and therefore Mr X can complete the activity in a reasonable time period.”  So if 66.67m per minute for Mr X is a little slower than normal, the guidance can’t also be saying that 30m per minute is acceptable for Mr Y.

I think that there must be a mistake here in the PAG rather than a change of guidance. The example refers to 1-2 minutes to walk 60m which is too vague to be of any use in determining walking speeds anyway (is it 1 min 1 second or 1 min 59 seconds?).

See also https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/6962/

BC Welfare Rights - 11 August 2020 04:50 PM

I hadn’t noticed this but that is what it says. However, there is an internal contradiction with the worked examples of Mr X and Mr Y. Mr X is said to take three minutes to walk 200 metres and ” Although a little slower than
normal, this is a reasonable time period for someone to walk 200 metres and therefore Mr X can complete the activity in a reasonable time period.”  So if 66.67m per minute for Mr X is a little slower than normal, the guidance can’t also be saying that 30m per minute is acceptable for Mr Y.

I think that there must be a mistake here in the PAG rather than a change of guidance. The example refers to 1-2 minutes to walk 60m which is too vague to be of any use in determining walking speeds anyway (is it 1 min 1 second or 1 min 59 seconds?).

See also https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/6962/

I must admit I had not read the examples, but I totally agree.

I had downloaded the attachment on the above thread and had a look at that also.  I think this (along with lots of other things of course!) is very problematic when on the face of it reg 4(2A) requires consideration of acceptable standard/reasonable time period - I guess we just make the case that it is not a reasonable time period, as seems appropriate!  I just hadn’t noticed the Assessment Guide’s comment on it!

I have just done a submission today for a client where I needed to answer the DWP’s “guidance”  I have attached the relevant extract (redacted of course) and my source material

I don’t see much need for going to great lengths to highlight issues with DWP (and certainly not Capita) guidance. The tribunal should base their decision on legislation. If the legislation is unclear, and there isn’t any caselaw to clarify the issue (in this case there are several which might be of use), the policy intention documents that underpin the design of PIP may be more useful.
As far as discrediting HCP reports goes - I’d only focus on this if there isn’t any other compelling evidence. On the extreme - if the tribunal only has the HCP report as evidence, you might want to completely discredit it, so they are forced to rely on the appellant’s testament alone.
Most reports I see has at least a few gross errors or miscalculations in them that can be used to cast their general reliability into doubt.

I think the issue of walking speed can be addressed from a more pragmatic viewpoint. For example, many claimants will have a rough idea of how long it took them to walk to the supermarket before they became disabled, or they might have a (comparatively similar) friend who normally accompany them, and could attest to how long it takes unimpeded.
There is also the reason why the walking pace is slow: For certain conditions slow gait is a common symptom. If it is due to pain, you can draw attention to that as well. Relatively few cases where the only symptom is slow walking speed.

I’m still fairly new as a representative - keen to see more views on this topic and wider.

I think thats pretty much spot on Va1der.

I recently had occasion to put the following (unredacted) in a submission on walking:

”  1. Mrs B said that she can, with the assistance of her crutches or walking frame, walk to the toilet or the kitchen in her house . The former takes 3-4 minutes each way; the latter takes 5-6 minutes each way. The sensible assumption to make would be, we submit, that the distances involved are small, and therefore her walking pace is very slow. The HCP has, however, approached the evidence in a completely different way .
  2.  The HCP has taken the 6-minute figure, apparently multiplied it by an entirely arbitrary walking speed (40m per minute) giving a distance of 240m, and concluded that Mrs B [can walk up to 200m]. She and the decision makers have not looked back at the evidence, which was that it takes Mrs B 5-6 minutes to walk to the kitchen.  It is contrary to common sense to conclude that the distance involved is anything like 240m. She lives in an ordinary house, not Buckingham Palace.” [“Laughter in court”, I hope.]

Just finishing a sub in which I describe part of a HCP report as “beyond parody”.

In one of my submissions to an appeal to a commissioner (now a UT) I “roundly condemned”, in the commissioner’s words, the DWP’s approach to the law in the case in hand as “mere sophistry”.  Well chosen colourful language certainly has its place.