PIP regarding changes to Deaf people since KT and SH v DWP Decision

Hi rainbow

I would ask for a copy of the assessors report called a PA4 then ask for a mandatory reconsideration pointing out what is wrong with the decision. Don't forget to use our guides to help you. benefitsandwork.co.uk/guides-for-claimants/pip

Gary

Hi rainbow,
Here is the Judicial Summary of the KT and SH case from the Upper Tribunal, which may be helpful for other members.

Judicial Summary

The claimants each need to remove their hearing aids to take a shower and to take a bath. Each cannot without the aids hear a typical fire alarm or smoke alarm while taking a bath or shower with the door closed. It was common ground that having to leave the door open would not be washing and bathing “to an acceptable standard”, as required by regulation 4(2A)(b) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013. Held: (1) In light of the decision of a three-judge panel in RJ, CMcL and CS [2017] UKUT 0105 (AAC), the First-tier Tribunal in each case erred in law in its consideration of whether the claimant can wash and bathe “safely”, as required by regulation 4(2A)(a) and as defined by regulation 4(4)(a). (2) There should not be room for different First-tier Tribunal panels to make different decisions as to whether there is a risk that cannot reasonably or sensibly be ignored, where the differences between the panels’ decisions arise not from differences in claimants’ needs but from different assessments of the same objective evidence of risk.

Just to explain, even though some people have different hearing loss to others, if they can not wear hearing aids whilst having a bath, and hence could not hear an alarm this is a risk to safety. It doesn't matter how bad or not the hearing loss is. This risk is the same risk for all hearing aid users, hence there should be no question by tribunals and therefore also DWP as to whether this will comprise a risk to safety in this respect.

However, to answer your specific question, the problem with staying in a hotel is that (presumably!) this is not for the majority of time. Reg 7
PIP Regs 2013 stipulates that points get awarded when you cannot do the activity to the required level for the majority of the days. So, if your daughter is away for say a week or two, this will not be for the majority of days.

If I understand correctly your daughter should score 2 points for needing an aid/appliance ie the flashing alarm. Are you suggesting she might need more points because she will require supervision? Aid for bathing is 2 points 4b, Supervision is still 2 points 4c.
You have told us that your daughter's PIP was reduced, seemingly as a result of being able to use the flashing alarm, however I am not clear as to exactly why the award was reduced. Maybe you can clarify this? If your daughter 'needs' to use the alarm, then this would be 2 points, or perhaps this didn't get awarded?
Please let us know if you need more help.
LL26