× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

another or/and debate

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Following on from http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/7981/ and http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/caselaw/item/descriptor-4e-addresses-the-ability-to-get-out-of-an-unadapted-bath-or-show

I also have one at UTT where the ‘or’ in “dress or undress” is at issue. Seems clear to me that it is disjunctive as only the 0 point scoring descriptor (a) refers to “dress and undress” but will have to see if m’learned one agrees.

Is “or” the most expensive 2-letter word in the English language?

Jon (CANY)
forum member

Welfare benefits - Craven CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 1362

Joined: 16 June 2010

Billy Durrant - 29 April 2016 04:13 PM

Is “or” the most expensive 2-letter word in the English language?

“UC”?

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

Billy Durrant - 29 April 2016 04:13 PM

Is “or” the most expensive 2-letter word in the English language?

it has certainly been the cause of an awful lot of litigation in various fields - which always puzzles me, as it is a simple word

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

UTT judge now wanting to know:  if person needs an aid or appliance to put on socks but can manage shoes unaided, is it sufficient to score points under 6b? Context being that the definition of the nil scoring descriptor says “includes put on and take off shoes AND socks”.

Also, whether slip on shoes constitute clothing that claimant chose only on account of limitations of claimant’s physical condition? Or would they be equivalent of claimant who cannot put on a jumper but can put on a cardigan? PE v SSWP 2015 UKUT 0309 (AAC).

Any thoughts welcome.

Thanks.

Cordelia
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Wrexham Council Welfare Rights Team

Send message

Total Posts: 149

Joined: 16 June 2010

This is only my opinion…

“Dress and undress” involves a number of different items of clothing - a person might be able to manage a tracksuit but not a formal outfit including a bow tie etc.  The DWP / tribunals need to use a reasonable approach to what constitutes “normal” clothing.

The “includes shoes and socks” definition is there to make it clear that someone is not fully able to get dressed if they can’t mange shoes and socks.  At this point its both shoes and socks - someone who cannot manage socks but pushes their feet into slip on shoes is not fully dressed according to the definition.

There is no requirement that the aid should cover all the different items of clothing involved in getting dressed - if an aid is needed for any one part of the process they do not meet descriptor 4a.  So someone who needs to use an aid to fasten buttons on their shirt, cardigan, and trousers / skirt may be able to put on shoes and socks unaided, but still can’t get dressed unaided.

If the bit of the process that needs an aid is putting on socks, then they would not be getting dressed (because dressing includes socks) unaided.  Descriptor 6b could apply to them.

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Thanks Cordelia, I agree completely with your synopsis.

My thinking at this point is that there is not any mileage in arguing that someone who can put on slip on shoes but not lace up shoes is disadvantaged (unless they live somewhere rural where slip ons might not be robust enough to cope with the terrain, I suppose). But if anyone has an alternative viewpoint I would be interested to hear it.

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Decision in this case attached, bit of a mixed bag:

A person only has to have problems with dressing or undressing, not necessarily both, to score against Activity 6.

There does not necessarily have to be a cognitive/intellectual impairment for a claimant to score under activity 10, the effects of depression are also relevant.

A claimant who can put on slip on shoes but not necessarily lace ups or buckled shoes is not deemed to be disadvantaged :-(

And another decision against a bed being an aid for dressing or undressing.

File Attachments

past caring
forum member

Welfare Rights Adviser - Southwark Law Centre, Peckham

Send message

Total Posts: 1116

Joined: 25 February 2014

Billy Durrant - 19 December 2016 12:04 PM

Decision in this case attached, bit of a mixed bag:

Don’t know about ‘mixed bag’ - you did well. Couldn’t see how you were going to win the furniture and slip-on shoes points given the already decided case, but the ‘dress and undress’ (really ‘dress or undress’) and the finances/activity 10 points are victories, surely?

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Thanks but I fear that the slip on shoes bit may be the cause of more detriment than the ‘or’ bit will be of help in the long run. Annoying because this came entirely from the judge, was not raised as an issue by me or DWP. If you can’t put on a jumper but you can put on a cardigan, then presumably you would have to wear a shirt instead of a t-shirt too, now slip on shoes as well. Doesn’t leave much choice of clothing left…

There were several other pre-hearing and at the hearing concessions from the DWP that didn’t make it into the judgement. The FTT SOR was ridiculous.

This client really should have got ERM too but I had to follow her instructions and have the decision remade rather than remitted. And in the mad world of PIP reassessments about 2 days after the UTT hearing she received a new decision on her PIP renewal claim - 0 pts for everything despite there being no significant change to any of her conditions. Back to MR, appeal, etc. What a waste of everyone’s time.