× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

every day objects as aids

 1 2 > 

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Just had my first PIP tribunal which we won easily enough, it was an indefensible decision to refuse it.

Client has severe bone disease and consequent difficulties with mobility and balance and various daily living activities. I argued on my submission that her bed should be treated as an aid or appliance for dressing (6b, 2 points) as she needs to lie down on it when putting on underwear, trousers, etc. She can’t balance to do it standing and can’t raise herself to do it sitting. The panel commented that they thought it an original and interesting argument (i.e. nice try but get lost) but did not award any points under this descriptor.

There is no need to appeal as we got what we wanted but I wondered if people thought it may be worth trying again at future appeals if similar circs apply? My feeling is that points should have been awarded, although the panel may have considered that she did not need to lie down to dress, despite the evidence to the contrary.

The PIP guidance for HCPs says aids “are devices that help a performance or function, e.g., walking sticks or spectacles” and goes on to say “this may include mainstream items used by people without an impairment…” (P. 74-75 of the PIP Assessment Guide).

Any reason why a bed, or indeed a chair or other furniture, could not be an aid for Daily Living activities?

Julie Stuart
forum member

Macmillan benefits adviser - Edinburgh Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 39

Joined: 23 June 2010

I would certainly give it a shot.

The first standard PIP application I did was for someone who had tinnitus in his fairly lengthy list of ailments.  A hearing aid made it worse not better so he relied on his wife, particularly for phone calls.  They awarded him points for using an aid or appliance - his wife I assume?!

I think this is one of the areas where there is room for interpretation (though I would probably not have thought of his wife being an aid or appliance) and we will get case law but as far as I can see every day objects can be used as an aid under the definition, they don’t have to be specifically designed for it.

Julie

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

I agree,

For example, I’ve had many clients who use an adjacent sink for support in order to get on/off the toilet. As far as I am concerned, the sink is a ‘aid or appliance’ for PIP purposes.

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

Well, aid or appliance is defined as:

any device which improves, provides or replaces C’s impaired… function

so adopting a broad definition of “device” it’s certainly arguable that the bed is such a creature.

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

DManville - 26 September 2014 02:57 PM

Well, aid or appliance is defined as:

any device which improves, provides or replaces C’s impaired… function

so adopting a broad definition of “device” it’s certainly arguable that the bed is such a creature.

what about a wife?

Geri-G
forum member

Welfare reform team - North Ayrshire Council

Send message

Total Posts: 91

Joined: 4 June 2013

1964 - 26 September 2014 02:16 PM

I agree,

For example, I’ve had many clients who use an adjacent sink for support in order to get on/off the toilet. As far as I am concerned, the sink is a ‘aid or appliance’ for PIP purposes.

My daughter who had an ABI, was awarded points for using the sink as an aid or appliance to get in and out the shower. PIP was only in a few months, and I hadn’t even considered it (was going for another descriptor), but HCP stated that’s what she did. Same points award as other descriptor I was going for anyway, so fine with me.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

I agree with the broad definition. PIP has inevitably sown the seeds of its own demise in terms of facing a post election ESA like slash in the number of points scoring activities based on no logic whatsoever when it becomes apparent just how many people will qualify through this route.

I have posted a couple of times previously that the functionality of many specialist aids is being absorbed into smartphones and thus at some point we will have to argue that a smartphone is an aid.

FWIW a tribunal deciding that a bed is not an aid have plainly not understood the law.

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

Billy Durrant - 26 September 2014 03:03 PM
DManville - 26 September 2014 02:57 PM

Well, aid or appliance is defined as:

any device which improves, provides or replaces C’s impaired… function

so adopting a broad definition of “device” it’s certainly arguable that the bed is such a creature.

what about a wife?

Drawing analogy between “wife” and “device” has set my imagination fizzing, but other than that; “assistance” is defined separate to “aid or appliance” so it would score under the assistance route rather than the “aid or appliance” route.

At least on my reading!

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

I agree Dan. I was being facetious as Julie’s post amused me.

Generally assistance will score higher than an aid too.

P.E.T.E
forum member

Head of Welfare Rights at Barnsley MBC.

Send message

Total Posts: 104

Joined: 17 June 2010

Billy

My wife is a great aid, I’d be lost without her.

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

Have lost on this again at Tribunal today - client needing to sit on a bed/chair/toilet to get dressed/undressed due to peripheral neuropathy and inability to balance whilst dressing or undressing. We were seeking descriptor 6b (aid or appliance) but didn’t get it despite panel seemingly having no problem with the fact that this is what he needs to do in order to dress/undress and awarding other points for similar needs for balance aids. I don’t understand why.

The Advice for Decision Makers (ADM) Chapter P2, PIP Activity Log states:

“If a Claimant must sit to dress/undress, and they use a chair, or the edge of a bed, for this purpose, can the chair/bed be considered as an aid?
No. A bed or chair is not a ‘device’ expressly made for the purpose of improving, providing or replacing the impaired ability to dress/undress. In contrast a shoe horn, say, is expressly made for this purpose, and could be considered an aid (if its use is medically required)”.

However, Regulation 2A of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations (2013) states:

“‘aid or appliance’ -
means any device which improves, provides or replaces C’s impaired physical or mental
function…”

And there is a statement in the PIP Assessment Guide (guidance document for providers) at 3.2.20 that aids “may include mainstream items used by people without impairment, where because of their impairment the claimant is completely reliant on them to complete the activity”.

As with previous case above we won the appeal overall so won’t be seeking SOR. Why would a bed/toilet/chair not count as an aid in these circumstances? Has anyone ever won on this point?

Peter Turville
forum member

Welfare rights worker - Oxford Community Work Agency

Send message

Total Posts: 1659

Joined: 18 June 2010

UtT decisions UK/5567/2014 7 UK/4056/2014 - see Rightsnet summaries - don’t discount everday objects being taken into account as aids. No doubt what can or cannot count as an ‘aid’ will often depend on the facts of a particular case. Clearly there will be ongoing scope for argument (and need for the UtT to return to the issue).

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

Links to UK/5567/2014 and UK/4056/2014

Grunkle
forum member

Welfare Rights Advice,Torfaen People's Centre Ltd

Send message

Total Posts: 50

Joined: 6 April 2011

Always worth pressing the argument, or at very least presenting the idea and argument for the Tribunal to mull over. Anything like that I tend to start off from a is it with in the bounds of reasonableness to do it that way/use that item in such a way. Not that uncommon for AO’s (those were the days!) or DM’s and Presenting Officers (showing my age again) to come up with similar suggestions as ways to avoid need for attention.

Will admit we have yet to plumb the depths of avoiding the need to deal ‘repeatedly’ with incontinence/aftermath over night by use of ‘onesie’. Having said that still hitting problems with two HCP who have seriously used the argument in their assessments that if the individual is aware it is happening, or can use public transport it isn’t incontinence or because they can obtain and use ‘pads’ they don’t accrue points.

Campbell McCrea
forum member

Citizens Advice Bureau, Berwick upon Tweed

Send message

Total Posts: 20

Joined: 27 January 2012

However, Regulation 2A of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations (2013) states:

“‘aid or appliance’ -
means any device which improves, provides or replaces C’s impaired physical or mental
function…”
This worries me when applied to the Mobility descriptors 2a., b., d., e. & f.

A FTT judge, in an appeal that has been adjourned, has put me on notice that he considers a motorised wheelchair an aid. My initial response is that it is not the claimant but the wheelchair that is “moving” e.g. 50 metres. But if the aid can replace the impaired function…?

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

But the moving around descriptors require you to ’ stand and then move’ - the definition of ‘stand’ is to be upright and have at least one biological foot on the ground (Schedule 1)- if you’re in a motorised wheelchair you are not standing and then moving. I think you still have to be able to do the actually activity as described even with an aid.

Though I’m struggling to think of what could replace the impaired function and still mean the claimant was standing and then moving…