DLA: Evidence of mobility not grounds to supersede care component award

Hi Neil

I don’t think you are referring to CDLA/5042/2014. But in this case :

A supercession/fraud case in which a claimant pleaded guilty to fraud in Magistrates Judge Mark held that a Tribunal must consider the care component irrespective of conviction as claimant is on dialysis.  Similar principles. 

Thanks, wasn’t quite what I was after, more something about evidence of reduced mobility needs does not equate to evidence of reduced care needs. 

DWP are citing alleged improved ability to walk as evidence that client has no care needs and can prepare a cooked main meal (as if walking is what we do when we cook…but then this is the DWP).

It has to be wrong, otherwise the reverse would apply and we’d all be routinely submitting that because someone gets hr mobility component, they should also get a care component!

Walking is a bodily function and so would form part of a DLA assessment as normal. Of course, if the claimant has sufficient difficulty with their other bodily functions, s/he may qualify despite their mobility improving.

Yes, I know.  Absolutely.  I was just hoping to cite some legal authority which states just that in order to reinforce the obvious.

Hi Neil,

I have a lot of supersession case law but none on the grounds you seem to be describing.

On a supersession issue, then CDLA/2115/2003 may help. It is not exactly the circumstances you were describing. At Paragraph 11, it does highlight that there must be a change in the circumstances upon which the award was based rather than on a new current assessment (supervision rather than attention needs assessment, in this case). Also, there is Paragraph 13 :” However, there are other cases, such as this, where there is doubt as to the basis of the award, and in such cases it will be necessary to provide sufficient details of the decision awarding benefit to identify the basis on which the award was made in order for there to be a valid supersession”

If your case is about entitlement to lower rate care under the cooking test, I enclose CDLA/1714/2005, which highlights the “thought experiment” process for the cooking test, although it is concentrating on cooking aids.

I hope that this is of help.

Regards

Chris

I have found a note of the UTD.  It is CDLA/1075/2011 - para 10: surveillance evidence of mobility and the need for findings of fact about care needs.  Does anyone have a copy?

Copy of CDLA/1075/2011 now attached.