[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Northern Ireland - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners' Decisions >> [1997] NISSCSC C53/97(DLA) (23 November 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NISSCSC/1997/C53_97(DLA).html Cite as: [1997] NISSCSC C53/97(DLA)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

[1997] NISSCSC C53/97(DLA) (23 November 1998)

 


Decision No: C53/97(DLA)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE Appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on a question of law from the decision of the Belfast Disability Appeal Tribunal dated 29 July 1996 DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER
1. This is an appeal by the claimant against the decision of a Disability Appeal Tribunal (DAT) which held that claimant was entitled to the lower rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) from and including 15 September 1995 but was not entitled to any rate of the care component from the same date.
2. Briefly the facts are that the claimant claimed DLA in September 1995. Her claim was disallowed and a review was carried out at her request but the decision was not revised.
3. Claimant suffers double vision and back pain. The Tribunal awarded her the lower rate mobility component on the grounds that although she was not unable or virtually unable to walk it found that the double vision made it difficult for her to judge distances. The Tribunal accepted that she would have difficulty in judging distance and speed of oncoming traffic. She would therefore be in danger while walking out of doors and would require guidance and supervision most of the time. As far as the care component was concerned the Tribunal found that although claimant had problems with her double vision it did not accept that her low back pain was sufficiently serious to be relevant for DLA. In refusing her the care component the Tribunal gave as a reason that claimant had not sought help from an Occupational Therapist or other professionals dealing with aids to assist her virtual handicap. It also recorded that if she had appropriate aids there would be no reason why she could not make a main meal for herself, nor would she require any significant assistance in connection with her bodily functions. It said the problems which she had in the kitchen could be easily overcome with the help of a few simple aids and that the same applies to the other problems she has in the home which she told the Tribunal about.
4. The Tribunal in considering that claimant could make a main meal if she had the necessary appropriate aids, neglected to apply the proper test in view of the fact that claimant did not have the unspecified aids it referred to.
5. I arranged an oral hearing having granted leave to appeal. The claimant was not present but was represented by Mr Mackle and the Adjudication Officer was represented by Mr Shaw.
6. Mr Mackle submitted that the Tribunal should have recorded what particular aids it considered would assist the claimant and that it also should not have denied her the benefit when the aids were not available. Mr Shaw said that claimant's main problem was her sight.
7. Mr Mackle stated that without the aids claimant could not either read the knobs on the cooker or cut vegetables. As a result she was entitled to the lower rate care component.
8. I have considered all that has been said and I have read all the papers in this case. I accept the finding of the Tribunal relating to the mobility component and I think claimant is entitled to the lower rate mobility. In any event, no point has been made on her behalf that she would be entitled to the higher rate.
9. As far as the care component is concerned, I am satisfied the Tribunal erred in saying that if claimant had appropriate aids there would be no reason why she could not make a main meal. In fact she does not have any such aids and one presumes that what the Tribunal was saying was that until she gets those aids she is not able to prepare a main meal. I am also satisfied that taking into consideration Mallinson and R(A) 3/94 that the spoken word may amount to attention with bodily functions, in this case the bodily function of sight. Considering all the evidence I am satisfied that the Tribunal erred in not properly considering her needs in respect of the care component.
10. I therefore allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the Tribunal. I am satisfied that I have sufficient information to enable me to give the decision which the Tribunal should have given. I accept and confirm the award of the lower rate of the mobility component from 15 September 1995 and I also am satisfied that claimant is entitled to the lower rate care component from 15 September 1995 due to her present inability to prepare a main meal.

(Signed): C C G McNally

COMMISSIONER

23 November 1998