× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Work capability issues and ESA  →  Thread

Activity 4C (the empty cardboard box)

 1 2 > 

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

Just wanted to share this with you. Client in question has the use of only one arm/hand (the other side is totally dead). No points attracted on the above descriptor on the basis that whilst two hands/arms would normally be required, client ‘can use another part of his body’ to make up for the missing arm.

Suggestions on a postcard please…

stevenmcavoy
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Enable Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 869

Joined: 22 August 2013

when your going over appeal papers or doing a form etc with a client you usually try and imagine yourself in their shoes to get a grasp on their difficulties.

im struggling with this suggestion i have to be honest.

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3135

Joined: 16 June 2010

1964 - 24 September 2014 03:27 PM

Just wanted to share this with you. Client in question has the use of only one arm/hand (the other side is totally dead). No points attracted on the above descriptor on the basis that whilst two hands/arms would normally be required, client ‘can use another part of his body’ to make up for the missing arm.

Suggestions on a postcard please…

His one remaining leg?

ROBBO
forum member

Welfare rights team - Stockport Advice

Send message

Total Posts: 334

Joined: 16 June 2010

From the current Bonner :

The key difference is that under the original WCA the descriptors variously referred to the use of either hand…They thus assumed only persons with two hands.  The Review thought this inappropriate; two hands were not necessarily required to perform the activity:

‘For example, an item may be transferred by wedging it against the body, or another limb, to achieve the same outcome…’

SamW
forum member

Lambeth Every Pound Counts

Send message

Total Posts: 430

Joined: 26 July 2012

If I was doing it I’d stand ‘good’ side on to the table with the box on it, push the box up against my waist/hip and then support it with the good arm going over and ideally a grip on the bottom of the box with my fingers. As long as the box is empty it’d be pretty easy (assuming I had no other problems of dexterity/agility/power apart from with the bad arm).

I guess one potential argument you could make is that the use of ‘bulky’ in the descriptor means objects that are too large to be easily transferred in this way. 

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

SamW - 24 September 2014 06:30 PM

I guess one potential argument you could make is that the use of ‘bulky’ in the descriptor means objects that are too large to be easily transferred in this way. 

Exactly. That’s my reasoning. I don’t believe it is possible (or certainly not reasonable) to expect anyone with only one arm to manage to perfom the action of lifing & transferring a large, empty cardboard box by holding said box against their body. It’s quite different to lifting a pint of milk or whatever.

Brian JB
forum member

Advisor - Wirral Welfare Rights Unit, Birkenhead

Send message

Total Posts: 472

Joined: 18 June 2010

There is no consistency of approach to this, however. I jave a case on my desk where one arm is virtually useless following a stroke, and the HCP recommended 6 points under this very descriptor.

Perhaps the comments of Judge Wikeley in AS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (ESA) [2013] UKUT 587 (AAC), agreed by the recent panel of Upper Tribunal Judges in [2014] UKUT 352 (AAC), should be put forward -

19. It follows that the activities and descriptors in Schedule 2 do not exist in some sort of artificial or parallel universe, entirely divorced from the real world of work. They have to be applied on their own terms, but understood against the backdrop of the modern workplace. In deciding whether a particular descriptor is met, decision makers and tribunals may therefore find it helpful to consider the claimant’s ability to undertake the activity in question in a range of different working contexts. However, claimants will not be awarded a defined descriptor simply because they can show that it would apply to them if they were employed to do a particular job in a specific type of working environment.

Ros
Administrator

editor, rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 1323

Joined: 6 June 2010

Here’s a link to the briefcase summary for the three judge panel decision which, in turn, links to Judge Wikeley’s decision -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/briefcase/summary/Construction-and-application-of-social-engagement-descriptors1

Claire Hodgson
forum member

PI Team, BHP Law, Durham

Send message

Total Posts: 165

Joined: 17 October 2013

I’m finding this one difficult - if only because I know a man with only one arm (removed at shoulder, I’ve no clue how or why) who can do amazing things with his remaining arm, including drive a tractor and operate a grinder.

Whether the could lift the notional cardboard box, I have no idea - probably not, in fact

and doesn’t that just show how unrealistic the tests are, in the context of work?

stevenmcavoy
forum member

Welfare rights officer - Enable Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 869

Joined: 22 August 2013

Claire Hodgson - 25 September 2014 10:47 AM

I’m finding this one difficult - if only because I know a man with only one arm (removed at shoulder, I’ve no clue how or why) who can do amazing things with his remaining arm, including drive a tractor and operate a grinder.

Whether the could lift the notional cardboard box, I have no idea - probably not, in fact

and doesn’t that just show how unrealistic the tests are, in the context of work?

I dont know.

im regularly shifting empty cardboard boxes about the place.

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Am wanting to argue this for a hearing coming up shortly and noticed that the Feb 15 WCA Handbook states at P.88:

“There is no requirement to have 2 hands to achieve the tasks outlined in the descriptors. For example. in (c) a person could reasonably manage this by using one hand and supporting the box against another part of their body”.

As per 1964’s OP.

Does anyone have the earlier version of the handbook to hand and if so please could they check whether that appeared there too?

Please someone tell me that HMCTS don’t go along with this nonsense…do they?

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

Altered Chaos
forum member

Operations & Advice Manager - Citizens Advice Taunton

Send message

Total Posts: 427

Joined: 28 June 2010

Billy Durrant - 21 May 2015 02:15 PM

Am wanting to argue this for a hearing coming up shortly and noticed that the Feb 15 WCA Handbook states at P.88:

“There is no requirement to have 2 hands to achieve the tasks outlined in the descriptors. For example. in (c) a person could reasonably manage this by using one hand and supporting the box against another part of their body”.

Hi Billy

The 2011 manual says the same thing!

Chaos

Brian JB
forum member

Advisor - Wirral Welfare Rights Unit, Birkenhead

Send message

Total Posts: 472

Joined: 18 June 2010

I don’t think you can make any generalisation about HMCTS - it will depend on the tribunal members as to how they view “light but bulky object”.

The first point to make is that a cardboard box is only an example of that object - the descriptor does not look at the ability/inability to “pick up” anything, or only in reference to a cardboard box. The actual activity is - “cannot TRANSFER a LIGHT BUT BULKY object”.

I take “transfer” only to mean to move from one place to another. I don’t see anything in the descriptor to say that distance is only a couple of feet, or that it should be for miles.

“Bulky” is often defined in terms of “unwieldy”;  having considerable bulk; massive;  of large size for its weight; clumsy to manage.

I think an argument can be made on the normal everyday definition of “bulky”, to try and counter any view/submission about simply wedging an object between an arm and the body - to be able to do the activity, a person must be able to do so safely and with reasonable regularity.

Taking a view that it takes some degree of effort to transfer an unwieldy/clumsy to manage object any reasonable distance, which is not de minimis or of unexpected length, to the requred standard, I can see that an argument for the descriptor could be made in many cases

Taking on board Claire’s example above, you may have to ascertain how successfully your client has adapted to his/her disability - some people may be more capable of undertaking this activity safely and with reasonable regularity than others - we all have different abilities whether ill, disabled or otherwise. I cannot run a marathon, other people can.

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Thanks Daphne and Chaos.

Guess that I am going to have to argue something else…

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Brian too - sorry, cross-posting