New guidance on continence descriptors - still utter nonsense?

We know the previous version was effectively quashed by the UT as being ‘wholly misguided’, but is this really any better?

As before,  the claimant must have a medical condition affecting bladder or bowel function in order for the continence activity to be considered.

This can’t be correct can it? All that is required is a physical disease or disablement - if the test was what condition you have instead of how it affects you, the legislation could have said so in plain words.

When considering a claimant with a medical condition affecting bladder/bowel function who in addition has impaired mobility, consider whether their mobility issue is sufficiently severe that their ability to access toilet facilities in a normal working environment,  with reasonable adjustments,  would be compromised.  This assumes that toilet facilities are within a reasonable distance and on the level.  If the history given is of continence issues where they have been unable to reach toilet facilities upstairs or a considerable walking distance away then it is not relevant.

Where does it say any of this in the descriptors? Descriptor (a) looks at the claimant’s actual frequency of incidents in their actual life, not what would happen if some hypothetical ‘reasonable’ relocation of facilities were undertaken. And surely (b) has to look specifically at what would happen if the person were not able to reach a toilet quickly: effectively the opposite of what they are claiming?

Guidance available here (section 3.2.10) - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/408884/WCA_Handbook_Version_7_-_030315.pdf

rightsnet story re changes here - http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/news/item/employment-and-support-allowance-continence-descriptors