× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

Moran Makes a Comeback!

Inverclyde HSCP Advice Services
forum member

Inverclyde Council

Send message

Total Posts: 142

Joined: 25 June 2010

The long awaited decision of the three judge UT panel in respect of the “supervision” descriptors has now been issued. Essentially it reaffirms that the principles established in Moran for DLA are also applicable to PIP.

Where supervision is in issue it is now established that the possible consequences of an adverese event occurring is just as important as its likelihood. The DWP’s position has been that an epileptic, for example, would require to experience seizures on at least four days a week to satisfy the 50%rule wrought by reg.7.

Following the Government’s response to MH it may seek to change the regs but that would be much more difficult in this case than it was in MH as the daily living descriptors refer directly to supervision in a way which the mobility descriptors don’t. Indeed, I would suggest that this decision allows epileptics etc. to survive the anti- MH regulations. The watchword, however, has to be “Make hay while the sun shines”!

Pat Clark WRO
Inverclyde HSCP.

[ Edited: 17 Mar 2017 at 09:50 am by Stuart ]
Mr Finch
forum member

Benefits adviser - Isle of Wight CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 509

Joined: 4 March 2011

Quick Penny, “restore the original policy intent”!

Image Attachments

103_40.jpg

Click thumbnail to see full-size image

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

Good stuff Pat.

You might want to take the first page out of the pdf of the decision because it’s got the appellant’s names on it.

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK - 16 March 2017 11:33 AM

Good stuff Pat.

You might want to take the first page out of the pdf of the decision because it’s got the appellant’s names on it.

reported

edit; the anonymised decision isn’t up on the new UT site yet.

[ Edited: 17 Mar 2017 at 09:51 am by Dan_Manville ]
Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 890

Joined: 21 March 2016

Thanks Dan - have removed the file - will add a link as soon as case is published.

Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 890

Joined: 21 March 2016

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK - 16 March 2017 11:33 AM

Good stuff Pat.

You might want to take the first page out of the pdf of the decision because it’s got the appellant’s names on it.

Here’s the decision (minus the first page)

CSPIP_97_and_106_2016

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Pretty decent decision all round that. Several aspects remain arguable although, to be fair, this government doesn’t need something to be rationally arguable before it will argue it. Seems to offer a decent perspective on sensory impairment and mobility too.

Mr Finch
forum member

Benefits adviser - Isle of Wight CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 509

Joined: 4 March 2011

Great result, although I think poor Mr Komorowski was tasked with the impossible if he was instructed to argue for the ‘more likely than not’ meaning. I hope the DWP won’t seriously be so idiotic as to try and argue that this was the original policy intention, as it would make the ‘safely’ provision completely worthless.

Ruth Knox
forum member

Vauxhall Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 551

Joined: 27 January 2014

Yippee

Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 890

Joined: 21 March 2016

Inverclyde HSCP Advice Services - 16 March 2017 10:21 AM

The long awaited decision of the three judge UT panel in respect of the “supervision” descriptors has now been issued. Essentially it reaffirms that the principles established in Moran for DLA are also applicable to PIP…..

Decision is now published on the UT decisions site on gov.uk - should have rightsnet summary and links on pipinfo.net later today…

RJ, GMcL and CS v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v RJ (PIP): [2017] UKUT 105 (AAC)

 

 

Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 890

Joined: 21 March 2016

Here’s the rightsnet summary [2017] UKUT 105 (AAC) and also on pipinfo