I have a young man of 18 who has a moderate learning disability, no physical disabilites. He had LRM & MRC which was refused at renewal because of an over optimistic assessment of his abilities from the college he was attending. His mother is his appointee. We have a date for the tribunal but he doesn't want to attend. What does everyone think about people with learning disabilties attending tribunal hearings.
I have suggested to his mother that he could wait in reception and would only need to come in if the panel decided they wanted to speak to him.

It is very important for adults with learning disabilities to attend tribunals and give as much evidence as possible. A Tribunal is likely to include at least one person capable fo recognising learning difficulties and the way that they show in people's thought processes and expression, and the amount of insight they have into their own difficulties and limitations. People with learning disability may lack insight and come across as bright and positive in a way which could be misleading on superficial acquaintance. An expereince Tribunal can learn a great deal by talking to them.
You do not say what sort of college course he is doing - is it one of those basic skills courses specially tailored to the needs of people with learning disability? If so, then you are looking at the College's comment within that context, not in comparison with the generslity of FE students who are taking A levels or vocational courses.
It is also useful if a carer or person who knows them well can attend and give their own view of how realistic the claimant's self-perception is.

Thanks for that Ariadne, your comments are much appreciated. The course was an NVQ joinery, which he failed to pass, but the report gives an unrealistic and optomistic assessment of his abilities. It was in fact completed by someone who had never met my client. His mother is understandably concerned about his attendance at the tribunal, she will be going as well. But your comments have helped me decide that it is in his best interests to attend and I shall be advising her of this. Thanks again Val.

On this subject, did anyone else notice the story in the papers today that GPs are going to be paid to do annual checkups on people with learning disabilities, on account of the (unsurprisingly) high levels of unreported physical illness among adults with such disabilities?

Maybe - just maybe - as a result some of the doctors who do the assessments for benefit purposes might learn a bit about learning difficulty and stop describing them as having normal intellect, good insight and good understanding when anyone who has any sense can see from a mile off they have real, incapacitating problems.

But then I'm an incurable optimist.

In the DM's guide it advises that the carer often gives a more reliable picture of care needs. Are there any useful CD's on this?

Being an incurable optimist at least leaves room for hope.

It's about time something was done about this shocking situation of people with learning disabilities receiving substandard care. We highlighted a report by Mencap, Death by Indifference, in our members newsletter in June 2007 that laid out some awful experiences. See pages 4&5 for more details.

Wed 05-Nov-08 02:14 PM by shawn

(Edited to shorten link)

There is a Practice Direction on CHILD, VULNERABLE ADULT AND SENSITIVE WITNESSES under the new tribunal rules which might be helpful.

Philip Boyd

Thanks for that & for everyones input, very useful thanks again Val

I need to ask another question. The original care component was awarded because he needed constant supervision so that he was not a danger to himself and others. I want to ask the panel to look at both supervision needs and attention needs but don't want to get in a mess.
The last time I did this the regional chairman was on the panel and we got into a bit of an arguement. He said " you can't have both". I said I wasn't asking for both I was asking the panel to look at both, is this right or wrong?

Any lawyer ought to be familiar with the concept of pleading "further or in the alternative"!

However what the RC (or Regional Tribunal judge, as we must now call them) may have been worried about is whether you are trying to add together a bit of attention and a bit of supervision to arrive at some sort of combination of "frequently throughout the day" and "continuous" to get you home. That certainly doesn't work. You need to be able to make out one or the other at least.

Thanks for everyones help. Appeal was successful, the original award was MRC & LRM for supervision. I was concerned that supervision would not be successful because both parents worked & he was often alone at home for a significant portion of the day, even though his mother came home at lunchtime every day. Tribunal awarded LRM for supervision outdoors & LRC for the cooking test & attention for a portion of the day.

Glad to hear you got a positive outcome to this appeal - did your client come along to the hearing? If so, how did he find the experience and how did the tribunal proceed?