× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

needs to use an aid or appliance (singular)

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

The first 8 DL activities refer all say “needs to use an aid or appliance…” This grammatical construction is referring to using a single aid or appliance. The definition in the PIP Regs is also singular.

So, is it arguable that a claimant who needs to use more than one aid or appliance to complete an activity is not caught by this descriptor but should meet a higher scoring descriptor, typically ‘needs assistance’? If they can’t complete the activity using a single aid how can they be scored for doing so?

Someone who needs to use a grab rail and a long handled sponge in order to wash or bathe, for example, needs to use 2 aids or appliances…

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

“assistance” means physical intervention by another person and does not include speech;

grant
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 71

Joined: 18 June 2010

Somewhere in the darker corners of my brain, I recall there being something called “The Interpretation Act” (1871?) which states that unless a piece of legislation specifically states otherwise, the singular shall include the plural (and the masculine the feminine). So in a nutshell I think whether the activity is performed with 1, 2 or more aids makes no difference as long as at least one aid is needed

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

You’re quite right Grant, but its not as ancient as that - its s6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/contents).

BC Welfare Rights
forum member

The Brunswick Centre, Kirklees & Calderdale

Send message

Total Posts: 1366

Joined: 22 July 2013

...amending the original 1889 Act.

Thanks Grant, stopped me making an eejit of myself