Whose wrong, me or DWP? High Mobility DLA

funmum

I don't think it is as clear cut as you would like it.

There is no defined distance for DLA in regard to being virtually unable to walk, although it is generally taken as being 50m. There are a number of factors that have to be taken into account when considering a claimants ability to walk; the distance, the manner of their walking, the speed, whether they trip and fall.

I note that your son was awarded Low Rate Mobility, if this was for Agoraphobia or another condition that severely restricts his ability to go out, then this may also be a factor as there is Case Law that in précis says that walking ability cannot be considered if the claimant does not leave the house.

Your stating that the can walk 50m-100m is unlikely to have helped as this would suggest that he can repeatedly walk 50m and that he can do this more than once a day.

The DWP are not required to seek further information as part of an assessment and certainly won't now so if you want information from your son's doctors to be considered then you will need to source this yourself.

It's unlikely that a DM will revise the current Decision without additional and significant evidence, especially as you have spoken to the original DM on the phone.

You need to be aware that any request for an MR or appeal can be expanded from the Mobility component to the full award if the those looking at it consider it to be reasonable based on the evidence before them.

Gordon

funmum wrote: I did make it absolutely crystal clear that he can walk under 100m a max of one or two times a day. I was very explicit and was clear about what would happen to him if he did more than this.

The low rate mobility award was to do with not being safe out and about on his own.

My question is more about what the criteria are for passing the high rate mobility test.

If it is to walk 51+ metres (as the DWP officer said) once a day only, then I agree completely that my son fails this test.

If it is (as I thought) to be able to walk this distance a reasonable number of times each day, or some such other criteria (in my mind I had the 400m once per day judge's comment), then believe he passes the test.

As I said in my previous post, it really isn't that simple.

Gordon

funmum wrote: Oh! Can you explain further at all please? I was trying to answer the points you made in your other reply.
Thank you

You are looking for a black and white, yes or no answer to something that is inherently grey, this has always been the great problem with DLA.

I've looked up the Case Law you are referring to, it is CDLA/805/1994 and whilst it does refer to 400m I don't think that it is entirely supportive of what you are saying. The argument of the case is that although the claimant could walk, by their own admission 400m, having done so they could not walk for some considerable time afterwards.

The UTT Judge states that there are factors where a claimant would not be regarded as being virtually unable to walk, having walked 400m and there were also factors where they would be classed as being virtually unable to walk, despite their having walked 400m, the Judge does not specify which category they think the claimant falls into.

www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/CDLA_805_1994.pdf

But their reason for overturning the FTT Decision is;

the tribunal's decision is erroneous in point of law because the chairman failed to record any finding on the claimant's assertion that there were periods when he was unable to walk at all after he had walked a moderate distance.

In other words the UTT Judge is saying that it was the failure to investigate the factors surrounding the claimants walking rather than the distance that was at issue.

What the law says

12(a) his physical condition as a whole is such that, without having regard to circumstances peculiar to that person as to the place of residence or as to place of, or nature of, employment–

(i) he is unable to walk; or

(ii) his ability to walk out of doors is so limited, as regards the distance over which or the speed at which or the length of time for which or the manner in which he can make progress on foot without severe discomfort, that he is virtually unable to walk; or

(iii) the exertion required to walk would constitute a danger to his life or would be likely to lead to a serious deterioration in his health;

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1991/2890/regulation/12/made

Repeatability is not specifically mentioned, there is Case Law which argues that it is a factor that should be considered, but again the argument is not a clear one as it is with reference to the distance, the speed or the time taken rather than a simple case of the walk needing to be repeatable.

So to try and summarise, it is for you to argue that despite the distance walked being greater then the generally accepted 50m, when factors such as the recovery time following a walk are taken into account your son should be considered to be virtually unable to walk because of the speed of their walking or the time it would take.

There is a guide in the DLA section that covers arguing walking distances.

Gordon

tags: @CDLA/805/1994