Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
Aids & adaptions - are these a reason or an excuse to refuse an Attendance Allowance claim?
I am working for an older woman – 68, who suffers from Arthritis in most of her joints. In addition to which she has spinal problems. She is under the care of her GP and various consultants for these and other problems.
She has financial problems and has today given me a report from the Disability & Carers Service refusing her Attendance Allowance.
Personally this is not my field, but given that it, and her financial problems are all interlinked, I am trying to understand what they are saying.
To start with she had a friend help her complete the application form – 3rd one since she was 65 – all ended in failure. The first two failed because there was no support from her GP as she had refused to discuss her problems with them.
The application form is very detailed and a GP report obtained by the Department confirms that she has considerable difficulties with day to day living. For example, bathing, dressing/undressing, shoelaces, zips, up and down stairs, unable to bend, unable to kneel, etc.
The report from the Department states that despite accepting that she has difficulties some of them serious, they are of the opinion that with the use of a number of aids and adaptions those difficulties would result in her not needing care regularly throughout the day.
It has been pointed out to me that that means she has to fund the purchase of a stair lift, a walk in bath, grab rails throughout the house, a complete change of wardrobe to include only slip on shoes, clothing with only Velcro fastenings, a walking frame, perching stools etc. etc.
Are the Disability & Carers Service able to accept on one part that she does have considerable care needs but counter it with if sufficient aids and appliances are purchased these needs would reduce below the threshold for Attendance Allowance? How would they know they would?
If so, how does she manage to fund these without the benefit in the first place?
To me it seems an argument that the Department could put up for any disabled person when applying for either Attendance Allowance or Disability Living Allowance.
The law allows them to make a determination of whether a person can perform tasks without the help of another person if they can use aids that are reasonably available to them. What is reasonable also includes what is within a person’s practical and financial reach. So, for example, most Social Services departments will put simple adaptations, such as handrails or perching stools in for free or at a nominal cost. However, getting things like stair lifts is more difficult. They can be more difficult to get on an assessment, can be costly and there are long waiting lists.
The Department should be challenged on the reasonability of use and the availability of (including financial availability) each suggested aid, if disputed, and then, where possible, be refuted on why the item is either not reasonably available, would not remove the need for help from another person or could not use at all. For example, all the walking frames in the world would probably not stop a person falling if they have severe balance and/or dizziness problems.
Or arthritic hands
Thankyou.
That was my thinking as well. How on earth they would expect aids and adaptions to be reasonable if the claimant is unable to get into and out of a normal bath. (Hoist or a walk in bath). The use of a shower is a no no, due to psychological reasons (panic if water comes comes from above)
The adaptions/aids for dressing and undressing, using zips and buttons as well as tieing shoe laces has me foxed.
That is unless they seriously expect her to ‘dump’ her current clothing and footwear and purchase a whole new wardrobe.
I feel that they are trying it on - it’s not the first time this has been mentioned in other decisions on the claims that she previously submitted, but were never challenged.
CDLA/1991/2009 holds that tribunal wrong in approach to adaptations not yet in place.
here’s a link to briefcase summary -
Not quite. It has limited applicability to do with qualifying periods. This is crucial for AA as it has no forward qualifying period and thus more will depend on interpretations ‘reasonably available’.
i think CDLA/1991/2009 might be useful in AA case - quotes from CDLA/304/07 (not published to UT site) -
‘12. In CDLA/304/2007, Mr Deputy Commissioner Mark said:
“22. Finally, it is submitted that the availability and/or acceptance of aids and adaptations is a justifiable reason for not accepting evidence of the claimant’s care needs. I disagree. The question in relation to attention is as to the attention which the claimant reasonably requires. What she reasonably requires must depend on what alternative help is reasonably available to her both initially and throughout the six months period from the date the award would commence. If, for example, a stick would enable a claimant to walk safely indoors, she cannot pray in aid its absence. Other aids and adaptations which are readily available might also be expected to be used, and taken into account in assessing the claimant’s care needs, whether or not she has them at the date of the decision provided that they can be expected to be obtained at short notice.” ‘
arguable, i think, that where there is no forward qualifying period, claimant must have the aids and adaptations by the date of decision or be able to obtain them ‘at short notice’. at very least, perhaps, helpful in confirming that aids and adaptations must be ‘reasonably available’.
“arguable, i think, that where there is no forward qualifying period, claimant must have the aids and adaptations by the date of decision or be able to obtain them ‘at short notice’. at very least, perhaps, helpful in confirming that aids and adaptations must be ‘reasonably available’.”
I wouldn’t depart from that Ros.
The other thing to bear in mind Oldestrocker is that the need for attention must be frequent throughout the day, and/or prolonged or repeated at night so dressing/undressing, bathing etc difficulties are relevant but don’t forget the difficulties she has spanning the day-time period (and/or meeting the night conditions) with consideration to the aids/adaptations discussion in previous posts.
The law allows them to make a determination of whether a person can perform tasks without the help of another person if they can use aids that are reasonably available to them. What is reasonable also includes what is within a person’s practical and financial reach. So, for example, most Social Services departments will put simple adaptations, such as handrails or perching stools in for free or at a nominal cost. However, getting things like stair lifts is more difficult. They can be more difficult to get on an assessment, can be costly and there are long waiting lists.
The Department should be challenged on the reasonability of use and the availability of (including financial availability) each suggested aid, if disputed, and then, where possible, be refuted on why the item is either not reasonably available, would not remove the need for help from another person or could not use at all. For example, all the walking frames in the world would probably not stop a person falling if they have severe balance and/or dizziness problems.
It may be useful to know that the authority for this is in CSA/101/88 - suggestions for aids and adaptions cannot be ‘without limit’ and the ability of the claimant to pay should be taken into consideration.