Can anyone help me with a CD please???
Got a client who needs toilet frequently through the night. At tribunal he was asked if he could use a bottle. He replied that he could, but he wouldn't. He would prefer to struggle to the toilet. SOR states 'the tribunal took the view that he could use a bottle.......'
I'm sure I've seen caselaw saying that doesn't matter - the point is that he won't. Can't find it - have I dreamt it!!!!?
Thanks for your help

xxx

Can't recall the CD but as a thought of the day - logic dictates that if your client goes frequently during the night, one has to ask how big is the bottle? - and if/when it becomes full, who has to struggle to empty it - were these points looked at by the Tribunal, and if so how did they propose they were to be overcome?

it's all very well proposing solutions but one should be prepared to answer the queries that arise from applying the solution.....

Thanks Mike

Will go down that road - he can go 14 times a night and I've yet to see that size of bottle! (apart from the one my gin comes in)
Had hoped to slam caselaw in first but perhaps I did dream it.

xx

I have guidance produced by www.bhas.org.uk Claiming DLA on Physical grounds.
It was 2007 and may be out of date but I have successfully used the follwing in modified terms to get decisions overturned.
'Please do not suggest that I should use a bottle or commode. I would find it deeply embarrassing and undignified have to sit in a room with a used commode or urine bottle during the day or night. It is accepted that prisoners in jail should no longer be forced to do such things and I do not believe I should be either. I would feel the same about having to use a commode or bottle in front of my partner or having someone empty a commode or bottle I have used. I understand that,for DLA, attention to help someone carry on an ordinary life is attention reasonably required. Using a toilt is 'ordinary life' for an adult, using bottles and commodes is not. As long as I am able to use a toilet with help then I reasonable require that help.'
I have often thrown in the bit about living as ordianry life as possible and had decions revised.
Reasonably required see R (DLA)10/02 ' the attention is reasonably required to enable you to live as far as reasonably possible a normal life'

Wow!
Loving it!
Especially the bit about prisoners in jail.
Sometimes wonder why we have to point out things that seem so obvious!!!!


Thanks loads

Reality is all a matter of perspective - what appears blindingly obvious to some is rocket science to others ......

Have just had an appeal where this came up. Lay member asked client and his wife if he could use a bottle and both responded yes. I cut in and asked how many times a night he needed to and he responded he had to go more than once. Made the point that emptying the bottle would be a frequent need. The lay member came back with it could be poured into a bucket at the side of the bed and he could do this himself!. So much for dignity.

When I'm too old to manage I hope somebody shoots me.

Tue 22-Sep-09 08:13 PM by medusa

Had a case at DLA lever where I was rang and asked why my client didnt use a bottle in the night.

I explained that he had Parkinson and the use of bottle was fraught with disaster. Client would have problems lifting and postioning the bottle, if he did manage to urinate into it he then had no one to lift it away and empty it. In trying to put it onto a surface he would more than likely spill it , this would have the knock on effect of spillage on his bedclothes and night wear which would then need 'help' to change his bedclothes!

I also agree that using a bottle is undignified and clients of mine who possibly could manage to deal with a bottle wont because they find it degrading.

Yes..elderly and disabled sounds like Utopia doesnt it?