Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Exertion
Just received a bundle, in the ‘Issues raised by the appeal’ the following statement has been made “Mrs xxxx is breathless on exertion. The term ‘exertion’ is accepted as meaning a person is able to walk the equivalent of 12 houses. This would be at least 50 metres. This is not a severe restriction in mobility for Disability Living Allowance purposes”.
Anyone come across this before? I certainly haven’t.
well, putting the words exertion 12 houses into google gives a DWP link, this thread and then a load of irrelevant spiritual stuff….
Don’t you just love the inventive words they dream up to deny benefit. That’s a new one. The “Twelve House Rule” will take its honoured place among the large mythology of DWP benefit refusals including the top one , the “Three Night Rule” in living together cases (I was once told that it’s a “Four Night Rule” in Lancashire because they have more stamina).
It always used ot be 50 metres, so they must be very small houses (dolls’ houses?). Anyway, do they mean 12 terraced houses or 12 houses like Buckingham Palace? We need to know.
Our local authority (Sunderland City Council) advise claimants that people can stay 2 nights a week before being classed as a couple for benefit purposes yet Sunderland Benefit delivery Centre state no stopovers at all are allowed and as a result plenty of IUCs follow.
We cant even use the SCC advice in mitigation as tribunals are only interested in their intrerpretation of the caselaw.
Very frustrating as an adviser, as we often have arguments with clients who tell us we dont know what we are talking about as “The man from the Council says my boyfriend can stay over twice a week”
Our local authority (Sunderland City Council) advise claimants that people can stay 2 nights a week before being classed as a couple for benefit purposes yet Sunderland Benefit delivery Centre state no stopovers at all are allowed and as a result plenty of IUCs follow.
We cant even use the SCC advice in mitigation as tribunals are only interested in their intrerpretation of the caselaw.
Very frustrating as an adviser, as we often have arguments with clients who tell us we dont know what we are talking about as “The man from the Council says my boyfriend can stay over twice a week”
Fortunately, I have the luxury of being able to say “I am also the man from the council and I can tell you that my honourable friend is talkin’ jive”.
Actually the “4 night rule” is probably a better test of exertion than the “12 house rule”.
If you want to pick apart the reasoning, there is no single accepted definition of “exertion”, even the DWP’s own assessment of “levels of exertion” depends on knowing just what level of exertion is being discussed. Eg if someone can only manage “mild exertion” then the suggested activity that ties in is merely “walking slowly on the flat”. It is only “Normal (ordinary) Exertion” that is associated with the 12 house distance. Even then, the 50 metre distance is not specified in the DWP guide.
At a recent DLA hearing in Bradford, I remember the judge asked the appellant how far he could walk without stopping, in terms of houses on the street, and then working out the approx distance in metres. But this was in respect of pain, not exertion.
For the record, as far as I can see the page on exertion levels is only linked from those on heart failure, COPD, asthma, and ischaemic heart disease. According to archive.org, the page has been on the dwp site since at least May 2010.
Actually the “4 night rule” is probably a better test of exertion than the “12 house rule”.
I think you are mistaken and refer to the four times a night rule. Otherwise known as a Moseley.