Presenting Officer at DLA tribunal

bro58 wrote:

I have merged Harry's posts and Gordon' response with Harry's "0 Points" thread to avoid confusion.

bro58

You're braver than me

Gordon

Judith wrote:

Gordon, thanks for the reply. I haven't actually mentioned middle rate mobility, I have the higher rate. You are correct that I am hoping to get the middle rate care reinstated.

The decision said the higher rate mobility covers help with going out. However, help with being able to take part in activities and socialising comes under bodily functions which falls under care and I don't think they should lump this under the mobility.

I hope this clarifies, it seems to have got slightly confusing, especially with the other poster in my topic!!

Forgive me I should have said High Rate Mobility, however, that aside, the SoR should refer to your Care requirements and your Mobility problems, are you suggesting that they have only assessed your mobility needs?

Gordon

Judith wrote:

Hello Gordon

Thanks for the reply. They're not contesting my higher rate mobility, they agree with that, thank goodness!

The SoR did assess care needs but I believe interpreted it wrongly, as Attention to bodily functions - 61107 - to enable a person to carry out a reasonable level of social or leisure activity should be the Care component, but the tribunal felt this was covered under mobility. Sorry if I didn't make this clear.

OK, I've back tracked through the Decision Makers Guide to the Case law that it refers to.

This is a very long judgement covering two appeals, which were referred to the House of Lords in 1998.

There are very specific circumstances surrounding the situation of the claimant involved, and it is not clear (at least to me), whether their situation limits the scope of that judgement or not.

On this basis I don't believe we can offer any confirmation of whether the Appeal panel should have considered your problems with socialising or not.

The bottomline is that you need to get assistance from an advisor with experience in appealing to an Upper Tribunal, they will need to look at the Case Law in question (Secretary of State for Social Security v. Fairey; R(A) 2/98), to see whether it relevant and if so, help you to further the matter.

Gordon