Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
pets?
I’m doing a sub for a client who has a dog. As we all know pets are great for company, morale and the act of stroking a pet has been proven to reduce stress. The client has suffered spinal damage. She can walk, and indeed has been encouraged to exercise by her doctors, but she can’t walk the dog as any jarring however slight will cause her intense pain. Luckily she has supportive friends who walk the dog for her every day. Bearing in mind that support and encouragement constitute help with bodily functions, and that it could be argued that the dog provides this, could I argue that help needed to care for the dog should be included in an assessment of her needs? Your help would be greatly appreciated - I can already hear the panel laughing at the suggestion!
“Bearing in mind that support and encouragement constitute help with bodily functions, and that it could be argued that the dog provides this…”
Unfortunately, the legislation requires that the help is provided by “another person”. Person is not defined in the Contributions & Benefits Act so must be given its normal and everyday meaning. And that is, human being.
Furthermore, attention usually has to be given in the claimant’s presence. So, even if the dog were a person and the attention given to the dog could qualify by proxy, as it were, the respective attention given to the dog, i.e. taking it for a walk, is not done in the claimant’s presence and would not, therefore, qualify anyway.
Wuff Justice
I think an actual guide dog would be worth a mention-but I think any other dog mentioned can open a can of worms.
I think an actual guide dog would be worth a mention-but I think any other dog mentioned can open a can of worms.
Why can’t a guide dog open a can of worms? Are they too busy or is it a training issue?
“Bearing in mind that support and encouragement constitute help with bodily functions, and that it could be argued that the dog provides this…”
Unfortunately, the legislation requires that the help is provided by “another person”. Person is not defined in the Contributions & Benefits Act so must be given its normal and everyday meaning. And that is, human being.
Furthermore, attention usually has to be given in the claimant’s presence. So, even if the dog were a person and the attention given to the dog could qualify by proxy, as it were, the respective attention given to the dog, i.e. taking it for a walk, is not done in the claimant’s presence and would not, therefore, qualify anyway.
The claimant could be sitting on a park bench watching the pet being excercised. :-)
And what about guide dogs and hearing dogs for the deaf!
If the cl goes with the dog walker and sits and watches what about walking the dog as a ‘social activity’ within the meaning of Fairey/Halliday case (R(A)2/89 i think)and the help needed for a ‘normal life’. Why should walking the dog be any less of a social activity than going to the cinema or something like that, its the help the cl gets from her friend to go out with the dog that will count.
(It would be a pity if this solves it, it’s Friday tommorrow and there must be loads of ‘dog’ jokes!)
I think an actual guide dog would be worth a mention-but I think any other dog mentioned can open a can of worms.
Why can’t a guide dog open a can of worms? Are they too busy or is it a training issue?
I don’t think a reputable website like this should be encouraging dumb animals to use sharp instruments like can openers, shame on you!
On a slightly different tack I find myself thinking about the change to the care component rules a few years back which said that any attenton has to be given in the presence of the claimant for it to qualify (reg 10C of the DLA Regs), rather than say over the phone. I’m almost certain that there was a case which said that the use of the phone in these circumstances could indicate that there was a reasonably unfilled need - what the claimant really needed was personal face-to-face attention but was having to make do with the phone. Mightn’t a pet be seen in the same way - it can’t actually give attention but could be an indicator of the need for attention?
On a slightly different tack I find myself thinking about the change to the care component rules a few years back which said that any attenton has to be given in the presence of the claimant for it to qualify (reg 10C of the DLA Regs), rather than say over the phone. I’m almost certain that there was a case which said that the use of the phone in these circumstances could indicate that there was a reasonably unfilled need - what the claimant really needed was personal face-to-face attention but was having to make do with the phone. Mightn’t a pet be seen in the same way - it can’t actually give attention but could be an indicator of the need for attention?
There is provision under reg K9 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/4/contents/enacted.
But I may be barking up the wrong tree.
On a sensible footing…..... In the prescence of another person surely can’t encompass within the local park? Then again the size and breed of the dog may be an issue.
Also the care required may be De Minimis? Paws for thought.
What about getting dressed to go to the park? After all people may well wear a shirt/blouse, jeans/trousers, coat and shoes but a dog just pants.
[ Edited: 11 Nov 2011 at 11:57 am by John Birks ]Yup - its definitely friday!
But Fido might obviate the need for care in other areas, eg fetching her slippers. Dog giveth, Dog taketh away. Probably best given the claimed jarring that the dog itself is more than De Minimis too. Easy to make a dog’s dinner of a case like this. Hey, there’s another care need.
I’d better bone up on it.
You’re all barking mad
You’re all barking mad
No, just doggedly persistent.
I was just having a quick peke at a RTR case of an Alsation boxer who’s suspected of being a terrierist…..
You’re all barking mad
No, just doggedly persistent.
I was just having a quick peke at a RTR case of an Alsation boxer who’s suspected of being a terrierist…..
Eh cocker, what a howler of a case.
You’ll be alright Jack, russell up some support and hound the DWP down with that bulldog spirit. You winalot of cases cos your a pure pedigree and want to avoid condalmation!
Chow,
AlteredChaos
This problem will be solved when the Government abolish DLA and replace it with the Personal Unindependent Payment, or PUP as it will be fondly called. In the meantime, I suggest that the claimant looks at caselaw such as Woodhouse vs DWP to understand the impact and meaning of walkies