tribunal for my son

Hi, My sons tribunal is due to be heard sometime around Aug/Sept. In the last few weeks I have been receiving copies of the paperwork being sent to the tribunal service from DWP. Last week I got a copy of the decision makers supplementary submission which reads as follows;

After careful consideration of the evidence I feel the award in place is appropriate.

Claims that Alfie needs constant supervision whilst outdoors to prevent any damage to his hip. It is considered that Alfie has suffered with his condition for some time and would now be aware fo the impact of over exertion. In the absence of any bladder complication consider that Alfie's fluid intake could be reduced prior to bed to prevent any need for him to get up during the night to go to the toilet.

Claims that Alfie needs guidance and supervision whilst outdoors due to needing help with his wheelchair and fatigue he suffers from can the tribunal please be reminded that low rate mobility is already in payment. Evidence shows that Alfie suffers great pain with walking and needs to stop and rest and at times needs to use a wheelchair. Whilst it is accepted that Alfie has some difficulties getting around it is considered that actions involving impact on his joints would be detrimental to his condition however walking on level ground would not impact to such an extent. Overall his restriction of walking would not be so limited to be virtually unable to walk.

My questions are -
1) Whilst they have accepted that impact on his joints is detrimental they have stated that walking on level ground would not impact - there is no medical evidence in the papers to support this. In fact Alfie uses a wheelchair every day. Would this stand up in a tribunal?

2) They have siad that Alfie has had the condition long enough to realise the effects that over exertion would have on him. Because he is only 9 it is very difficult for him to come to terms with the impact that his condition has on his daily life. Again is this something that will stand up in a tribunal?

3) They continue to state that at TIMES Alfie needs to use a wheelchair. In fact he uses a wheelchair every single day. Does this make any difference to his case, because it seems like they are choosing to just ignore this fact.

4) Am I right in thinking that they have described in the above all of the criteria that you have to have in order to be granted higher mobility? I asked Alfies physio if she thought that I should continue with this claim and she said yes in view that Alfies condition has not got better, in fact it has got worse. So how could they grant him higher mobility and lower care in the first place and then stop it with the renewal, I have included far more evidence than the first time.

Sorry to rant on but this is just so stressful, any help or answers would be very gratefully received.

Hi Trina,

I've changed your forum name as it appeared to give your full name.

You seem to have a very good grasp of the issues and I'm not sure there's much we can add.

I am concerned at the DM's suggestion that a child should be deprived of liquids in the evening to reduce the state's liability to pay benefits, though. I don't think that should go unchallenged.

Issues 1-3 are all ones on which the tribunal should reach its own conclusions based on the evidence - rather than the unsuported opinions of the decision maker. Any supporting evidence, particularly medical evidence from someone such as the physio, you can provide will help.

In answer to 4, teh criteria for HRM are in the guides, but there's no doubt the DM is making a case for it not to be awarded. Unfortunately, decision making in relation to DLA is frequently inconsistent and unreasonable.

All you can do is go to the tribunal and put your case which you seem to have a clear understanding of. I should add that awards can go down as well as up at an appeal hearing, though it does sound like the case for lower rate mobility is very persuasive.

Good luck,

Steve