Hi

If a client can concentrate to read a magazine article or follow a radio or televison programme and use a telephone book to find a number but will not do so unless somebody else motivate them do they qualify for either of these two descriptors?

Thanks

W/O looking anything up, I'd say no to the first and yes to the second. This is because the first specifies a lack of concentration to be the the limiting factor, but the second doesn't - so the inability could be caused by any mental disablement of which lack of motivation is a feature.

However, going back to the first, in this context is there really a difference between lack of concentration and lack of motivation? If someone lacks the motivation to engage in the activity in the first place, will they really have the concentration to sustain it?

Agree with Tony. For apathy re - answering the phone, see CSIB/53/03.

Thanks for your help Tony Boywman

In terms of watching TV, if another person motivates my client it helps signficantly.

That descriptor should be read without refernce to watching TV. The Court of Appeal in Howker ruled that the amendment to the original descriptor to include watching TV was ultra vires.

Nevip,

My client can concentrate to read a magazine article as well but she also needs motivating to do that.

Hi

The reason I mentioned that was that the amendment meant that the descriptor was harder to satisfy. It was felt that it was easier to follow a TV programme than to follow a radio or magazine article. So it became important to remind tribunals of the decision in Howker.

Regards
Paul

Although this one of those 'Howker' issues that has 'swung both ways'. See CIB2821/2004 (the amendment is not valid for this descriptor) and CSIB/279/2005 (the amendment is valid for this descriptor).

Many thanks for everybody's help. I will let you know if the appeal is sucessful.