RRS (Reliably, repeatedly, safely)

Quoting bro58

As with any of the actions in the different questions, it is whether you can carry out the actions for the majority of the time, Repeatedly Reliably and Safely.

With, "Reasonable Regularity".

If you can't carry out the action for the majority of the time, and as above, it would be fair to answer "no".

Carrying on from the above premise, the answer "no" does not necessarily mean that you can NEVER do it.

This ought, I suppose, to deal with the "variable conditions" and "fatigue" question, but ...

Approximately once a week I tackle the stairs - downstairs using stick and handrail, out to appointment or whatever, the upstairs using stick, handrail and - about 50% of the time - help lifting the leg for part of the time. My balance is precarious at all times.

It's known that I may cancel appointments at the last minute because I'm too tired, but generally I try to "save up" the energy.

But if I'm asked if I can climb just two stairs, using sticks and a handrail, then the answer would have be "Yes," most of the time. If they asked me to keep on doing it for 10 minutes, then I would certainly not be safe by the end of it, nor capable of doing anything else for an hour or so.

This is my problem, but I think other people must have similar ones. You have something you might be able to do once, or be able to do several times and fairly safely, but only if you consider that action in isolation.

In my case it's no good being able to go downstairs, if the effort means all you can do is rest enough to get back upstairs again and back into bed. So - from the functional point of view so beloved of the DWP school of assessment - on any of those days I am not able to carry out a task which includes going downstairs.

From the bureaucrat's point of view, however, what you do before or after the task is irrelevant, either you can climb the stairs or you can't. So when you fill in the form, do you have to keep adding (not RRS) or just put in "No."?

Will an examining HCP, or a DWP DM actually believe the bald "No," if they think you can do it sometimes, or with an acceptable degree of safety?

What I did here was tick 'it varies' and then give a full explanation in the box. I'm not saying that this is he right thing to do, of course, but it is how I tackled most of the form.

A decision can then be made on whether the claimant can perform the relevant descriptor with reasonable regularity.

OK, "reasonable regularity" - according to - well ATOS, the DWP, the victim?

I sometimes think that the word "reasonable" inserted into English law is basically there to give work to lawyers.

It's all so terribly subjective, which IIRC is exactly what the DWP wanted to avoid.

I'm correct aren't I? This was about objective and up to date measurement, and not about saving money?

You might as well fill it in according to your own personal idea of reasonable. They can only disagree.

BB