My client has an agoraphobic condition which means that for most of the time she finds it difficult to leave her home. Occasionally she can do, although she tends to 'choose her moment' eg by doing her local shopping after dark when fewer people are around and she is less likely to be recognised by people she knows. For the remainder of the time she stays at home and she finds it difficult to go out, even if she has someone who can go with her.

My client gave evidence in these terms to a tribunal but she was given 0 points for the 'Getting About' activity because the tribunal decided that she did not satisfy descriptor 18a because she could occasionally get to familiar places on her own and that satisfying descriptors 18 b to d is conditional on the claimant being able to get out if accompanied by another person.

I think the tribunal may have interpreted the descriptors correctly, but it seems a little perverse that someone who has great difficulty leaving their home even if accompanied by another person is treated less favourably in the PCA than someone who can get out with an escort.

Any observations?

Wed 24-Mar-10 10:39 AM by ros.white

hi-
i think it is very strongly arguable that the tribunal has misinterpreted descriptor 18 a by ignoring the concept of 'reasonable regularity' which applies to the wca in the same way it did to the pca (CI/95(IB) and CSIB/17/96). if your client can only go out occasionally, after dark, i think it would be right to say that, over all, she can't do it.

this view is supported by the commentary to sch2 to the ESA regs on p1142 of the vol 1 of the sweet and maxwell soc sec legislation (bonner).

i'd be inclined to appeal to upper tribunal on that point. might get set aside by tribunals service before it gets there.

cheers ros