Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Awareness of Hazard
I’m wondering about something with this activity. Should the assessment consider how the claimant would fare if required to perform in a potentially dangerous situation, such as pouring boiling water? Or if they have enough insight to avoid ever doing anything dangerous, does that demonstrate sufficient ‘awareness’ that no points are scored?
Interesting question but I think the former. It is about awareness whilst performing the Activity, not insight into an inability to do it. The Activities have to be completed safely. Avoiding completing them may make it safe but it doesn’t change the fact that they still can’t be completed safely.
Edit
To expand on that… If a person’s insight into their limitations allows them to complete an Activity safely in a different way that demonstrates that they can actually complete it, with adaptions. Insight into their total inability to complete it demonstrates that, in fact, they can’t do it at all.
This is interesting as I have a case at the moment, which I am now just taking to Appeal on a number of issues. However one of them is awareness of everyday hazards. My client no longer uses a cooker as he has had 2 house fires in the past, due to his poor memory and concentration. The DM has decided that the fact he no longer uses the Cooker indicates he has awareness of the Hazard, and therefore awarded 0 points.
This is interesting as I have a case at the moment, which I am now just taking to Appeal on a number of issues. However one of them is awareness of everyday hazards. My client no longer uses a cooker as he has had 2 house fires in the past, due to his poor memory and concentration. The DM has decided that the fact he no longer uses the Cooker indicates he has awareness of the Hazard, and therefore awarded 0 points.
That is patently absurd. He has an awareness that to keep himself safe, he cannot use a cooker. The reason he cannot use a cooker is because he is unaware of the everyday hazards that comes from using a cooker.
The fact that he can remember the former i.e. that he should avoid using the cooker, doesn’t overcome the fact that his poor memory and concentration means he cannot reliably and safely use the cooker.
What was it the government were saying about PIP and bizarre decisions?
This is interesting as I have a case at the moment, which I am now just taking to Appeal on a number of issues. However one of them is awareness of everyday hazards. My client no longer uses a cooker as he has had 2 house fires in the past, due to his poor memory and concentration. The DM has decided that the fact he no longer uses the Cooker indicates he has awareness of the Hazard, and therefore awarded 0 points.
That is patently absurd. He has an awareness that to keep himself safe, he cannot use a cooker. The reason he cannot use a cooker is because he is unaware of the everyday hazards that comes from using a cooker.
The fact that he can remember the former i.e. that he should avoid using the cooker, doesn’t overcome the fact that his poor memory and concentration means he cannot reliably and safely use the cooker.
What was it the government were saying about PIP and bizarre decisions?
For once I actually agree with the DWP with this one :/.
Activity 12 is about claimants ‘requiring supervision to maintain safety’. If somebody knows that it is not safe for them to do something and refrains from doing it then they don’t need supervision to stay safe and don’t meet this descriptor.
For me somebody with the problems described scores points under Activity 13 instead as they are unable to perform the task safely.
Activity 12 is about claimants ‘requiring supervision to maintain safety’. If somebody knows that it is not safe for them to do something and refrains from doing it then they don’t need supervision to stay safe and don’t meet this descriptor.
For me somebody with the problems described scores points under Activity 13 instead as they are unable to perform the task safely.
So how do they perform the task in Activity 12 safely then?
Activity 12 is about claimants ‘requiring supervision to maintain safety’. If somebody knows that it is not safe for them to do something and refrains from doing it then they don’t need supervision to stay safe and don’t meet this descriptor.
For me somebody with the problems described scores points under Activity 13 instead as they are unable to perform the task safely.
So how do they perform the task in Activity 12 safely then?
They can’t which is why they should score points under Activity 13 instead. If they weren’t able to perform the task safely and did not have any insight and attempted to perform it anyway then they’d score points for both.
That’s my reading of it anyway, YMMV
[ Edited: 15 Mar 2017 at 05:15 pm by SamW ]The way I look at it is a person can take steps to limit risks from hazard (such as not cooking or using sharp knives) but you can’t eliminate a reasonably foreseeable risk of encountering hazards unless you wrap yourself up in fireproof bubblewrap or stay in a padded cell. There are always going to be hazards out there in life and work - sharp edges, hot stuff, etc. - that you will encounter going about your everyday life. So an awareness that you are not safe to cook doesn’t mean that you are necessarily aware of (and therefore safe from) hazards.
I guess this will end up at Upper Tribunal before too long if the DWP is taking this line on it…
[For once I actually agree with the DWP with this one :/.
Activity 12 is about claimants ‘requiring supervision to maintain safety’. If somebody knows that it is not safe for them to do something and refrains from doing it then they don’t need supervision to stay safe and don’t meet this descriptor.
For me somebody with the problems described scores points under Activity 13 instead as they are unable to perform the task safely.
Reductio ad absurdum
if he avoinds doing anythijng at all, then he never does anything, therefore there is never any risk or danger to him and the fact that he could do these things means he scores 0 points.
The descriptor:
Reduced awareness of everyday hazards leads to a significant risk of injury to self or others; or damage to property or possessions, such that the claimant requires supervision for the majority of time/frequently/occasionally to maintain safety.
The Test (IMO)
Awareness of hazard is the task – this means being aware of what is happening around you in terms of where you are, where you are supposed to be, and whether anyone or anything around you is a threat to your health and safety.
What is Awareness?
Awareness is the ability to perceive and understand a situation. So what someone thinks is happening may not accurately reflect reality.
Knowledge, experience and learning enables one to understand what is going on around one and to determine if the situation is safe (or not.)
Awareness is individual and different otherwise there wouldn’t be accidents.
How we read a situation can be influenced by many things such as impaired mental function, the type of information we have been given, experience and the surroundings.
How does it apply (IMO)
Crossing the road is an everyday hazard – young children have little to no awareness of the hazard posed by traffic. Wild Animals have little to no awareness. Domestic animals have some awareness. Older children and Adults typically have full awareness unless impaired for some reason.
Relying on an inability to cross dangerous/busy roads and using a crossing would indicate awareness of hazard.
Jaywalking is not an offence to my knowledge and people aren’t legally compelled by law to use an official pedestrian crossing. It’s common sense to do so.
I haven’t as yet argued this descriptor for anyone to my knowledge – but the test, for me, is and would be the lack of ability to perceive or understand.
[For once I actually agree with the DWP with this one :/.
Activity 12 is about claimants ‘requiring supervision to maintain safety’. If somebody knows that it is not safe for them to do something and refrains from doing it then they don’t need supervision to stay safe and don’t meet this descriptor.
For me somebody with the problems described scores points under Activity 13 instead as they are unable to perform the task safely.
Reductio ad absurdum
if he avoinds doing anythijng at all, then he never does anything, therefore there is never any risk or danger to him and the fact that he could do these things means he scores 0 points.
In that situation they would score 15 points for Activity 13?
Thanks for the replies, and I think my initial view is to agree with SamW and John B. My client avoids cooking or crossing the road alone as he may lose focus or concentration midway, so he is therefore aware of the hazard.
However, my reservation towards this approach is that it seems to rob the 6 and 9 point descriptors of any meaningful purpose. This still makes me wonder whether this situation is the one where those must apply.
Also, being perhaps overly pedantic, s. 8 of the Act requires that regulations must “define the assessment by reference to the extent to which a person who has some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement is capable or incapable of performing such activities as may be prescribed”. Is “being aware of hazards” while doing nothing else really an activity?
My own view is this will be something of an academic argument in the vast majority of real life cases…..
Some examples of things that might show a reduced awareness of hazard;
- turning the gas hob on but forgetting to light it.
- turning the gas oven on but forgetting to light it.
- placing food on the hob or in the oven but forgetting about it and burning it/causing a fire.
- drying clothes on a rack in front of a gas/open fire which then collapses onto the fire because of a draft and a house fire results
- forgetting/not realising that food that has been cooking in the oven for an hour will need an oven glove/cloth when removed
- when living in a house with a boiler that will heat water close to boiling point, running a bath without any cold water or allowing it to cool and then stepping straight into it.
- carrying on walking ‘on the level’ when reaching the end of the landing at the top of a set of stairs and falling down the stairs as a consequence
- leaving keys to the house/flat in the outside keyhole overnight/all day whilst you are inside
- removing the stone from an avacado with a downward stab of a sharp knife whilst said avacado is cupped in your hand and pinning your hand to the chopping board as a consequence
I’ve done every single one of the above - and all of them whilst sober. But as I say to my clients, we all do this kind of stuff occasionally - the real question is whether we are doing them with sufficient regularity so as suggest our memory/ability to concentrate/ability to process information/ability to learn is signifcantly compromised.
I’ve yet to meet a client who does these kind of things regularly whilst simultaneously having the ability to learn from their mistakes or to actually remember that they are liable to forget to light the hob and to no longer do it as a result…..
What I do encounter are clients whose learning disabilities or brain injuries or psychosis or means that they regularly do these things but cannot learn from experience…..and clients with significant depression or other mental illness who might have accidents/burn food/cause fires if they cooked due to impaired concentration - but where the primary reason for not cooking is lack of motivation.
In my experience, if a client’s mental functioning is actually impaired to the extent that awareness of hazard is impaired, if you push you will find something - John Birks’ example of crossing the road is a good one and one that I’ve used a number of times. Others might be letting the bath overflow and flooding the flat below, regularly washing clothes on too high a temperature so the colours run (damage to property), regularly losing keys and smashing windows/breaking doors to gain entry to your home.