We get a decision from blackpool on a Deaf client who has no speech either - uses BSL but niether his employer or family do. He needs communications help for the majority of the day as he does a quite technical job. Having made out a solid 5 page case for middle rate care, and quoted and copied all relevant case law from HoL downwards, only got low care.
Asked for written explanation of decision - got back a one and a half line statement saying client not entitled to middle rate as he does not require attention frequently throughout the day or frquently at night. No mention, no reference whatsoever to the evidence, or why the DM chose to ignore Fairy-Halliday, and one or two other Comms decisions.
So, we phoned up, and were put through to section that explains decisions - started to ask why we didn't have a decent statement - statrted to talk about case law - the young man then said he didn't know what the regulations said or what case law was: he must have guessed from the tone of my voice that I was not too pleased with this, and said that if I spoke to him like that again he'd put the phone down on me!.
Anyway, he must've have got bored with trying to explain things he clearly knew nothing about, and asked if I'd like to talk to his supervisor. We then progressed through his supervisor to another very helpful Lady, obviously experienced in DLA, who will be arranging for a DM to look at the case again.

The point of the posting - what is the point of letting some young chap answer the telephone in the explanations section who hasn't the faintest idea of what he is talking about: especially one who has however read up all about how people should speak to him nicely on the phone - he seemed genuinely suprised that I could even think of becoming ever so slightly impatient with him....

Well the tea boy has rights as well you know!

With the greatest respect for the unique british tradition of tea drinking, hot beverage technicians should limit themselves to specialising within their chosen field, and not aspire to annoying, beyond reasonable doubt, persons who are seeking enlightenment.

The last time someone said I didn't need to raise my voice, sound petulent and/or challenge their awe inspiring lack of knowledge, I had to explain that actually I did because they were talking such a load of whatsit - needless to say the phone went down shortly afterwards.....

The other issue raised by Mike's post is the deplorable state of decision-making for deaf clients. We had a profoundly deaf client with no award of DLA at all (eventually resolved by an apppeal tribunal). The DWP submission did not even mention Fairey/Halliday. It appears that the decision-making process fails to start from 'with which bodily function does the claimant require attention?' If they approached it from this angle the DM would inevtably reach the correct conclusion that 'attention was required in connection with the b.f. of hearing'.

It's like the way they can't recognise the need for help with getting to sleep, since they seem to have no idea that sleep is a bodily function; or walking out of doors for people over 65 as part of their attention needs.

You're right, is the failure to look at the case law.

There does appear to be a general lack of understanding of bodily functions such as seeing, hearing, speech etc - other than the glaringly obvious physical ones. What is even worse, I have come across staff in DBU who don't appear to have even heard of the more important decisions such as Mallinson, Fairey etc - I wonder whether part of the problem lies in the fact that there are a younger generation of DM's who are in fact too young to remember that fat back - nevertheless, if that is the case, then it raises a question mark over the quality of checks by team leaders.....