× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Decision making and appeals  →  Thread

Hopeless guestimates of distances/time

 < 1 2

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Joe Collins - 17 December 2014 03:13 PM
1964 - 05 December 2014 12:56 PM

It really can be worth measuring it. I’ve taken clients ‘out the back’ with a tape measure on many an occasion. The results can be surprising (and frequently bear no resemblence to the distance the client has said they can manage).

Presumably the purpose of gathering such evidence is to use it. What do you do in a situation where a person estimates eg the distance they can walk before stopping to be 50m but when measured is, in fact, 150m?

Many years ago, in the days of Mobility Allowance I think, appeals held at the Liverpool venue included a walk outside. The tribunal members, representative and Presenting Officer [remember them?] would accompany the appellant walking along. Notwithstanding that this was a snapshot of one occasion it seems to me that this was a useful element of the overall evidence to be considered.

Distance is part of time, speed, distance and manner so in itself I don’t see 150m as an issue. Had at least 1 client qualify recently who could walk 1/4 of a mile. Distance in itself is not the issue. The task is to persuade tribunals that it’s not the key thing in isolation.

I also remember the days of the walking test and personally found it a horrendous thing and utterly humiliating for claimants who had to publicly walk whilst being obviously measured, inspected and judged by three tribunal members and a presenting officer often with members of the public looking on with a mix of fascination and equal judgement.

That aside, it also introduced a wholly unnecessary additional element of conflict when, as a rep., you pointed out what had happened when the claimant stopped at 20m etc. and one of the members objected to your interpretation.

Would I want to see any of that return? No thank you.

Joe Collins
forum member

Wirral Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 20

Joined: 23 June 2010

Yes distance is only one factor. The point I was seeking to make was that a person may underestimate as well as overestimate a distance and i was wondering how “1964” dealt with that information.

As regards walking as part of a tribunal, i take your point that if the public can view the test that is not desirable.

JFSelby
forum member

Benefit caseworker (SDAIN project) - Selby CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 54

Joined: 17 May 2011

It is a simple thing but we bought a distance wheel which clients would borrow and try at home usually over a weekend or week, standard things they would measure would be distance from front door to car, door to gate, home to bus stop even home to local shop

The distances could then when appropriate be put into the claim form or into the paperwork later.

After a couple of particularly annoying tribunals we also measured a few distances round the local tribunal venue

door to car park
door to that nice pub across the road

Then locally we measured the local supermarkets as often the ‘so you shop at your local Tesco, Asda , Morrisons’ would come out and of course these vary from tiny corner to massive hypermarket

It helped with a lot of clients particularly when I was at the tribunal and could confirm the fact measurements had been made

The actual distances while not the be all and end all of it always seem to matter

1964
forum member

Deputy Manager, Reading Community Welfare Rights Unit

Send message

Total Posts: 1711

Joined: 16 June 2010

Joe Collins - 17 December 2014 03:53 PM

Yes distance is only one factor. The point I was seeking to make was that a person may underestimate as well as overestimate a distance and i was wondering how “1964” dealt with that information.

The same way as I would deal with a client overestimating how far they can walk. It’s about getting a ball-park distance (and assisting the client in assessing that figure). I quite agree that distance is only one factor, but it does tend to be a problematic one when- as is often the case- there is much conflicting information (which could result in a tribunal not considering a client to be a reliable witness).

past caring
forum member

Welfare Rights Adviser - Southwark Law Centre, Peckham

Send message

Total Posts: 1116

Joined: 25 February 2014

I don’t know that it’s necessary for things to get as complex as a walking test or even giving clients a measuring wheel to take home (though I’m not knocking those who have taken that approach).

After a few problematic tribunals early in my career, I adopted the following approach;

- take the client to the front door of the office.

- ask them how far they think they would normally be able to walk down the road before having to stop, measured against a specific landmark (post box, bus stop, corner shop etc). Of course, I’ll have already measured those distances.

- ask how long they think it might take them to cover that distance - for those that may also have an unrealstic appreciation of time, I’ll ask whether they think it may be the same length of time we’ve been stood at the doorway discussing their walking - the same length of time? less? double?

- ask how long they think they might need to rest before being able to continue (by now we’ve got some understanding of time)

- lastly ask whether, on any further walking following the stop, they’d be able to cover the same distance or less, whether this would take the same time or longer and whether any stops would need to be for the same length of time or longer. This can be useful where the distance to the first stop taken in isolation might make HRM entitlement marginal, but where a claimant’s total or overall walking ability might make the case a goer.

And in my submission I’ll then tell the tribunal precisely how I have arrived at the distances and times. Had a couple of tribunals get uppity about this in the beginning, but quickly slapped down by more senior chairs/Commissioners (it was that far back). Of course, distance and time are only two factors, but speed is a factor of these two and manner is usually pretty obvious.