Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(DLA)2/08
File Number:	CSDLA 627 2007
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Mrs L.T. Parker
Date Of Decision:	18/01/2008
Date Added:	28/01/2008
Main Category:	DLA, MA: mobility
Main Subcategory:	other
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Mobility component – disregard of ability to use routes which are familiar to claimant – whether consideration of that ability is prohibited when determining ability on unfamiliar routes The claimant applied for an award of disability living allowance (DLA). The tribunal, drawing support from the examining medical practitioner, found that the claimant was capable of walking out of doors even on unfamiliar routes. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner on the grounds that the tribunal had failed to disregard his ability on familiar routes. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. the starting point was to consider whether the claimant could walk on familiar routes without assistance, before moving to look at ability on unfamiliar ones (CSDLA/12/2003 applied). It followed logically from the fact that a person was unable to walk on familiar routes without guidance or supervision, that the person would also be unable to do so on unfamiliar ones. However, the converse did not apply. It would depend on the nature of the person’s condition (paragraph 12); 2. it was not necessary for the tribunal formally to apply the two stage process, provided that the relevant issues are addressed in substance (paragraph 13); 3. in consideration of the legal criteria for entitlement to lower mobility, there must be ignored any ability to use familiar routes, albeit not an inability. However, when considering whether the claimant is unable to walk on unfamiliar routes without guidance or supervision, it may be evidentially relevant to that question as a matter of fact, what, if any, are his difficulties with familiar routes (paragraph 14); 4. the statutory test for the lower rate of mobility component must be read as a whole. The disregard of any ability he may have to use routes “which are familiar to him on his own” prohibits a legal barrier to entitlement because of such an ability, but does not prevent consideration of it as an evidential tool when determining the person’s ability on unfamiliar routes (paragraph 16).
Decision(s) to Download:	R(DLA) 2-08 ws.doc