Tribunal Appeal Refused

Hi Navigator

I'm not sure which specific case you are referring to from the PIP Guide - but you may find this resource useful -which has case law summaries (not just PIP) - which hopefully you can find for the exact one you want from Disability Rights UK
www.disabilityrightsuk.org/how-we-can-he...s/case-law-summaries.

If you cannot find it there you can look at the National Archives caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

BIS

Hi Navigator

This is the one assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5...PIP_2034_2017-00.pdf

BIS

Hi Navigator,
I have been thinking about your post.
Firstly, about using a timer for cooking- I suspect most people use a timer for cooking, so you have a big hurdle to cross. Yes, it certainly could be an aid for cooking, but the key to understanding a possible error of law, (and therefore arguing it) is to show that the tribunal didn't provide sufficient explanation to reject this.
There was a similar case involving dressing descriptor. Several claimants were arguing the use of the bed to sit on in order to dress was an aid. Although initial caselaw suggested this may be so, it was later rejected. administrativeappeals.decisions.tribunal...px/view.aspx?id=5002
The ultimate view was that most if the population use the bed to sit on whilst getting dressed. I think the cooking timer will fall into the same thought process as the bed. However, if there is something extra unusual about the timer used, especially if it was specifically chosen for being extra loud, or that the sound it makes is a certain buzz or ring that is easier to hear then you have a stronger case to argue for points here. If the tribunal were aware of special nature if the timer and just dismissed it like the bed usage then this may well be an error of law.
Communication - I want you to first consider how the friend communicates. Tgere us an established link with engagement face to face as clearly is a crucial element for engaging with someone else.

Have a look at this case assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5...PIP_1534_2016-00.pdf Again not awarding points for requiring communication support needs to be properly explained and the evidence considered - if the tribunal fails to meet either or both of these requirements there will an error of law. The tribunal has an inquisitorial function, so for all descriptors it needs to consider the evidence, and how to apply the legal tests set down in the Regulations.
To give an obvious example if the tribunal understand that the claimant has sciatica and this causes poor walking ability and simply award 4 points for 50-200m ability because the tribunal accept sciatica does cause walking issues, they may find themselves in error of law by failing to ask further questions to establish exactly how far the claimant walks. Have the tribunal made sufficient enquiry about cooking timers and communication support ? Has the tribunal explained the evidence? Has it applied the correct legal test? If the tribunal premise is that claimant appeared to communicate ok in front of the panel, then communication support isn't required this may seem a logical argument. However, one would presume that the tribunal are trained to facilitate communication/engagement (and hence might comprise 'support') - after all the law requires that a tribunal needs to consider how a disabled person gives evidence and make reasonable adjustments . Was this done?
Was a hearing loop used? Did the claimant actually communicate well in the hearing? - maybe there was hesitation or repetition, or clarification was often required. Remember that if the claimant took a long time to respond to a question this could indicate she did not communicate on a reasonable time or to an acceptable level. Reasonable time is no more than twice that of non disabled person.
How long does it take to hear a question and respond. Most people would be in a position to formulate an answer almost instantaneously- so eg a 10 or 20 second delay in attempting to respond could indicate being outside a reasonable time. ( I don't mean thinking about what to say, and hence creating a delay, although this is difficult to separate.) If you have a copy of the official recording this will show any significant delays, or questions being repeated or clarified. Communication tasks require both speaking and crucially understanding. Did the friend need to repeat her answers to enable the tribunal to understand her words?
Engaging
administrativeappeals.decisions.tribunal...202559%202015-00.doc

This case confirms the link with communication and engaging.
Remember also that the tribunal room is likely to be quiet and possibly with a hearing loop. This won't be the same in eg a supermarket or night club etc. The law requires that a claimant has to 'repeat' activities across the whole day, safely, to acceptable standard and in reasonable time, this means in reality in all places and scenarios a claimant would reasonably wish to visit. A principle of normality applies. (Fairey case)
If a claimant can only communicate or engage in limited circumstances then the 'repeats' won't be made.
Have a look generally at pipinfo.net/activities/communicating-and also the equivalent engaging page. This website gives more case law on many aspects of PIP case law.
If I think of anything else I will post again.
I hope this helps.
LL26