Mon 30-Nov-09 11:19 AM by iut044

Hi

How short would a period of attention need to be for it to be classifed as De Minimis for Disabiliity Living Allowance purposes? Would helping someone drink count as De Minimis?

Also can individual De Minimis periods of attention be taken into account at all if there are other attention needs that are not De Minimis?

Thanks

There is no such concept of de minimis within the context you describe. Attention in connection with a bodily function that is reasonably required counts. It can be as short or as long as you like. If saying to someone "get out of bed" is accepted as reasonably required then that is attention that can be aggregated with any other attention reasonably required in order to satisfy the conditions of entitlement.

There is a concern relating to DLA for deaf people that certain attention will be classed as “de minimis” and thus disregarded. I expect the principle applies to other disability-related needs. In R(DLA)3/02 Commr Fellner discounted things like tapping a deaf person on the shoulder to get their attention. With acknowledgements to the DLA pack for deaf people by Clive Davis of Newcastle Welfare Rights and taking the example of tapping a deaf person on the shoulder to get their attention, my suggestion is this:
1. if you are already sitting next to the deaf person, then tapping on their shoulder is likely to be ‘de minimis’. I would discourage a deaf person from recording such events in their ‘DLA diary’.
2. if you have to get up and walk over to the deaf person to tap on their shoulder, this is likely to count as attention.

Thanks for both of your's help.

In CSDLA/590/2000 - (Link http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/cmmr_upload_2/csdla5902000.doc)

paragraph 35 it is said "Attention must, of course, always be more than de minimis but, provided it passes that test, it may be brief. Nor is CSDLA/24/1998 inconsistent with this. It cannot be wrong for a tribunal to make findings about the time for which attention is required, but it is otiose for middle rate day attention, except with respect to de minimis considerations."

Do you think that Commissioner Parker is saying that the attention combined throughout the day must in total be greater than de minimis rather than totally disregarding individual de minimis spells of attention?

i think, the latter. I’d forgotten about that decision. In my view the principle would have little practical consideration in the overwhelming majority of cases and I have never in many years of repping ever had a tribunal apply the principle to the detriment of my client.

A standard definition of the principle is “of trifling consequence or importance; too insignificant to be worthy of concern”. The difference between this and “brief” is very thin indeed and, except for a small handful of cases, I would be surprised if there were any major problems regarding it.