Called for DLA to PIP Assessment at private physio

Got another question.

What are the rules on the Moving Around stuff? I thought it was supposed to be about outside and inside dosn't count? Though we've been measuring inside stuff. Bed to toilet is just over 7 metres, so get a rest half way through trip and total is still well under the 20 metres stuff... Anyway, here's what it said about that:

"The nature of your condition would suggest muscle fatigue and your energy levels would fluctuate during the day, you reported that you could mobilise around your home using your stick....(lots of stuff that I disagree with)... I cannot consider any other help you need not covered by the activities for daily living, mobility, including getting to and from the toilet and uneven ground.

I believe the uneven ground (in fact in my MR I quoted kerbs) should be considered.
administrativeappeals.decisions.tribunal...px/view.aspx?id=4869

So I believe there's mistake in Law there?

Maggie

Found the bit in the thing I gave link to in last question. Seems to me it specifically says that it's out of doors. So me mobilising round the home shouldn't count?

7. The claimant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal. The issue before the tribunal was whether the claimant should have scored 8 points under the “moving around” activity. It was the claimant’s case that she could only stand and then move unaided more than 20 metres but no more than 50 metres. The tribunal refused the claimant’s appeal, and confirmed the decision of 3 June 2015.
8. On giving permission to appeal I asked the Secretary of State to make a submission as to the type of surface upon which the “moving around” activity is to be assessed. I am grateful to the Secretary of State’s representative, Ms Powell, for her helpful written submission.
9. Ms Powell concedes that the “moving around” activity should be judged in relation to the type of surface normally expected for pedestrian use out of doors. I accept this concession.
10. To move around outdoors one must generally walk along pavements and roads. It is a rare pavement which is as level as a bowling green. To my mind, the decision maker or tribunal must contemplate a reasonably flat pavement or road surface, taking into account the usual rise and fall one would normally encounter. As in the case of the higher rate mobility component of DLA, the test should not be “as to whether the claimant could walk on unploughed land or over unmade-up roads or over pavements under repair by the Council.” (R(M) 1/91 at para 8).
11. I agree with Ms Powell’s submission that when assessing a claimant’s ability to move around, regard must be had to his or her ability to cope with kerbs. After all, a person would normally expect to have to step up and down from the pavement during the course of moving around out of doors.
12. Further, I share Ms Powell’s view that an inability to climb steps or slopes (other than the usual inclines found on pavements and roads) is not to be regarded. Activity 2 concerns the ability to move around, and relates to the physical aspect of walking. It does not make any reference to climbing, which uses a different set of muscles and is, in general, a more difficult function than walking.
13. In this case the claimant expressly put in issue the question of her ability to step off kerbs, but the tribunal did not specifically refer to it in its Statement of Reasons. Given that the claimant had raised it as an issue, in my judgment the tribunal should have done so. Its failure to do so, and to make findings on it, amounted to an error of law.
14. I have considered whether the error would have affected the outcome of the decision. On balance I have decided that it may have done, and so it is appropriate for me to remit the appeal to a new tribunal for a rehearing.

They don't have a copy - husband went down there this afternoon to ask. All they have is the letter was sent on 8 November, no copy of letter.