We have had two of these in a row, and niether client is what you might call happy bunnies, and we don't feel too good about these cases either. In order that the client underatnds to basis for the arguement s we will be using at Tribunal, we go to a lot of trouble to try and explain the criteria, together with an out line of the Law and, just as importantly, the most relavant case law.

Both appeals focussed on the ability to walk without severe discomfort. Both cases had good medical evidence and personal written and verbal evidence in support of their appeals.

One case featured Planters Facilitis, Which I understand is a quite painful condition which affects either one of both feet. The process of walking induces increasing levels of pain, which do not subside to any noticable degree upon taking a rest. In this instance the client was in pain whenever she stood up and placed her weight of the offending foot: walking merely aggrevated the problem.

The other case involves ME, which as most of us know causes increasing muscle pain, fatique etc upon only minmal exertion. In this case, the client is one of that small % who's ME has not become less marked as time as gone on - in fact the opposite. He now includes amongst his symptoms general aches - pains etc throughout his body. - poor sleeping patterns - etc. His medical evidence included included a four page report from one of the best ME specialists in this part of the world.

The questions inevitably brought up the infamous supermarket stroll.

Q "How do you do your shopping - do you use a supermarket? How many isles can you get up and down?"
A "Most of the ones that I need to - I always have to lean on the trolley for support though"
Q "What happens if you feel you can't walk much further?"
A "I have to finish the shopping - I have no choice -even with pain."

The same type of logic is applied to other situations - what we cannot seem to be able to impress upon Tribunals nowadays is that people need to carry out certain tasks most day - getting to the local shops, or whatever, and to do so they have to subject themselves to increasing levels of severe discomfort and pain.

We have used the "Only walking that can be achieved without severe discomfort should be taken into account" arguement, together with the "The speed of walking is so slow that the person could be said to be virtually unable to walk", until we are blue in the face, but with little or no success.

We have written for Statement of reasons in both cases: which is OK up to a point, (finding errors of law isn't so easy as it once was either), but in the meantime thought we would ask if others have found this area becoming more difficult to argue, or is it just us......

Considering just how b***** aggreived we feel about these two, we thought that the aforegoing was quite b***** restrained, especially for a b***** friday....

Sympathies.

From my perspective nothing has changed. I've always found distance, in ignorance of all other parts of the mobility test, to be the overwhelming factor for decision makers.

In one case, some years ago, we had to go to the commissioners twice, for the same claim, because in each case the tribunal took only the maximum walking distance in ignorance of other factors. The client experienced permanent severe pain.

One final thought... Can you imagine what your average supermarket would be like if everyone walked round like they do on the street? I don't see the comparison. Wrong test?

It's not just you - it happens all the time and seems to have been doing so for ages.

Had a client last year with severe DVT - in constant pain, took it to appeal, then Commissioners, back to appeal , adjourned for medical evidence and then appeal disallowed again. In the meantime had put in a new claim, where the DM used the medical evidence requested by tribunal and awarded HRM.

Got an appeal tomorrow where the mob bit relies on breathlessness and danger to health, and then another one soon for client with Plantar Fasciitis who has been taken off HRM. Can't wait...

Having a podiatry degree prior to taking up this welfare rights malarky. I find it very hard to understand a high rate mob claim if that is the only disabling condition as a simple orthotic can relieve the symptoms and it is not an enduring condition in the main.

As for ME I come across this very often but if the Appellant explains the answers with the onset of severe discomfort and descibes based on that then the result should be fair.

The questions are used as a guide of distance, speed and sometimes manner etc.. As a representative you should covera ll this in your submission prior to appeal to avoid any ambiguity.

Let me know how it comes out. Good luck

Hi - have come to this post a bit late but do sympathise with your entry. I feel there has been a marked shift in the decisions taken re mobility over this last year and have similarly struggled with trying to get the Tribunal to accept the 'severe discomfort' argument. Other advisers in my area have commented on a shift too.
Not saying it was ever easy (except when DLA was first introduced - maybe!) but it's almost as if there has been a direction issued saying no more DLA mobility! I have wondered what has promted this - has there been harsher case law that I've not picked up on? Liz