Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Going up steps in a hypothetical wheelchair
Would I be right in thinking that if a hypothetical wheelchair is ‘awarded’ to the claimant when assessing activity 1, then it must necessarily follow that he should also be assessed as if using the wheelchair for the purposes of going up two steps? After all, regulation 19 says:
In assessing the extent of a claimant’s capability to perform any activity listed in Part 1 of
Schedule 2, the claimant is to be assessed as if—
...
(b) wearing or using any aid or appliance which is normally, or could reasonably be expected
to be, worn or used.
I don’t see why they should be allowed to have it both ways, so that the hypothetical wheelchair can be magically summoned into being when convenient and then magically disappeared again when it’s a nuisance!
They are different descriptors though not a combination of both so surely the reasonability tests are distinct. If there was a levitating wheelchair readily available then it would be reasonable to use that to go up steps though…
Maybe this device is actually available now. Shhh, don’t tell Atos… http://www.weirdasianews.com/2010/02/26/plane-bird-levitating-senior-citizen/
The steps descriptor involves doing it unaided by another person, so yes, it would basicaly have to levitate.
It’s good to know you could be Davros and still not qualify for ESA.
Activity - Extermination by own creations
Descriptor - Survives and starts again - repeatedly
Points - 0
It’s in reg 5086(3)(xxxiv) of the Employment and Support Allowance (Totally Unnecessary and Unfeasibly Long Winded) Amendment Regulations 2014.
“Appliance” – means any aid that the Secretary of State considers that the claimant can use, whether or not that appliance exists in the real world or simply in the world of his farfetched imagination and includes pogo sticks, stilts, wings, teleporters, flying carpets and similar contraptions.
It’s in reg 5086(3)(xxxiv) of the Employment and Support Allowance (Totally Unnecessary and Unfeasibly Long Winded) Amendment Regulations 2014.
“Appliance” – means any aid that the Secretary of State considers that the claimant can use, whether or not that appliance exists in the real world or simply in the world of his farfetched imagination and includes pogo sticks, stilts, wings, teleporters, flying carpets and similar contraptions.
With respect Nevip, I beg to differ. I’m surprised that an adviser of your knowledge and experience has overlooked that Davros would clearly not have Habitual Residence or R2R, so instead would fall within the new Imaginary Benefit Tourism and Ramped Up Xenophobia before the Elections (Part 94) Regulations, requiring him to only be allowed to do specified kinds of work. This is primarily being a cheap duck house builder (no need for a boat) and certainly would not allow him to sell the Big issue, or any other such reprehensible activity that is clearly contrived to take advantage of the UK’s galactically generous benefits system.
It’s in reg 5086(3)(xxxiv) of the Employment and Support Allowance (Totally Unnecessary and Unfeasibly Long Winded) Amendment Regulations 2014.
“Appliance” – means any aid that the Secretary of State considers that the claimant can use, whether or not that appliance exists in the real world or simply in the world of his farfetched imagination and includes pogo sticks, stilts, wings, teleporters, flying carpets and similar contraptions.
With respect Nevip, I beg to differ. I’m surprised that an adviser of your knowledge and experience has overlooked that Davros would clearly not have Habitual Residence or R2R, so instead would fall within the new Imaginary Benefit Tourism and Ramped Up Xenophobia before the Elections (Part 94) Regulations, requiring him to only be allowed to do specified kinds of work. This is primarily being a cheap duck house builder (no need for a boat) and certainly would not allow him to sell the Big issue, or any other such reprehensible activity that is clearly contrived to take advantage of the UK’s galactically generous benefits system.
Double LOL!!
I’ve not had so much fun sitting on hold to the contact centre since the time my colleague’s chair collapsed. Thank you both for cheering up my Friday afternoon.
It’s in reg 5086(3)(xxxiv) of the Employment and Support Allowance (Totally Unnecessary and Unfeasibly Long Winded) Amendment Regulations 2014.
“Appliance” – means any aid that the Secretary of State considers that the claimant can use, whether or not that appliance exists in the real world or simply in the world of his farfetched imagination and includes pogo sticks, stilts, wings, teleporters, flying carpets and similar contraptions.
With respect Nevip, I beg to differ. I’m surprised that an adviser of your knowledge and experience has overlooked that Davros would clearly not have Habitual Residence or R2R, so instead would fall within the new Imaginary Benefit Tourism and Ramped Up Xenophobia before the Elections (Part 94) Regulations, requiring him to only be allowed to do specified kinds of work. This is primarily being a cheap duck house builder (no need for a boat) and certainly would not allow him to sell the Big issue, or any other such reprehensible activity that is clearly contrived to take advantage of the UK’s galactically generous benefits system.
Billy
I stand corrected. Well played sir!
There’s plenty of video evidence for Dalek technology levitating stairs so no chance on descriptor 1 (b) but can’t imagine Davros has ever had a wheelchair assessment so I’d pitch for Sch 2 & Sch 3 act 1.
There’s plenty of video evidence for Dalek technology levitating stairs so no chance on descriptor 1 (b) but can’t imagine Davros has ever had a wheelchair assessment so I’d pitch for Sch 2 & Sch 3 act 1.
No chance.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/opinion/columnists/guest-blog-davros-2012091040438
If it’s of any interest I successfully argued at Tribunal that the descriptor required someone to negotiate the two (2) steps in one (1) movement ie bypassing step 1 completely!
If it’s of any interest I successfully argued at Tribunal that the descriptor required someone to negotiate the two (2) steps in one (1) movement ie bypassing step 1 completely!
http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/6269/
I remember your original post on this and I did try it in a tribunal submission where I was desperate for anything. The client has arthritic knees and whilst he was able to go up steps one at a time he wouldn’t have been able to go up 2 steps in one movement. Anyway, when we got to the tribunal he had a letter waiting telling him that he had won on other activities so it did not come up.
What I wonder about your post though is, are you sure that the tribunal awarded your client the points on this 2 steps in one movement basis? Might it have awarded him the points just because it felt that he could not have safely, repeatedly, reliably, etc., used crutches on steps, full stop?
It is a brilliantly original argument, but I do find it a bit bizarre if you did win on it, I was half expecting to be laughed out of the hearing when I tried it…
Without the full written reasons I’m not sure why they awarded the 9 points but you are probably quite right in that they accepted he could not reasonably and repeatedly manage the stairs with crutches - but I’ll still argue it again when I can!
Case pending before 3 Judge Upper Tribunal
CE/327/2013 and CE/509/2013
WCA activity 1: mobilising unaided – Relevance of personal circumstances other than disability in considering the ability to mobilise using a wheelchair and, in particular, the potential availability of anti gravity technology