Continual/continuous supervision conundrum

but also:

I regard it as inconceivable that the legislation intended that claimants who might be at risk of serious harm if left to prepare and cook a meal unsupervised, such as those with epilepsy and similar conditions, could only qualify for points under Activity 1 if they could establish that they were likely to come to some form of harm, serious or otherwise, on more than half the days in the required period.  Regulation 4 applies to all activities, but only some activities include descriptors relating to a need for supervision.  In my judgment, where there is such a descriptor the question of whether a claimant needs supervision to carry out the activity concerned must be considered separately from whether the claimant can carry out the activity ‘safely’ under regulation 4 of the 2013 PIP regulations, since otherwise the inclusion of a ‘supervision’ descriptor in the activities where they occur would serve no useful purpose.  Regulation 4 and ‘supervision’ descriptors may in many cases raise common or overlapping issues of fact, but they are in my view analytically and conceptually distinct.[/quote}
para 11

bearing in mind the case is about someone who has seizures, and of course one cannot predict when someone might have a seizure, whether as to day or time, one can envisage that someone might require supervision when engaging in the activity in case a seizure occurs, with its potential consequences.

my thinking on this is also fed by the whole “risk assessment” scenario, which I think should also assist in PIP situations:
one can have a small risk of a serious consequence, or a large risk of a small consequence, or variations in between.

so in a case of seizures, as here, even if one doesn’t know when the seizure will occur, the consequences could be fatal (e.g. if the person is in the bath, and drowns, as has happened, or falls and suffers skull fracture) or minor (e.g where the person was for instance sitting on sofa and didn’t fall anywhere so didn’t hurt him/her self.)

i think the supervision should surely be a function of the activity being performed, and the risks from that activity in the event of the risk guarded against occurring.

[ Edited: 3 Jun 2016 at 10:02 am by ClairemHodgson ]

I have always read supervision in this context as meaning a continuous presence throughout the activity in question, but, there is nothing that requires there to be no gaps in the supervision. Having a presence is not necessarily the same as supervising. The need for supervision of a series of actions connected to an activity will vary depending where you’re up to. Slicing the spuds may require some supervision. Placing them in the pan afterwards may not. However, in order to do the one you would generally have to be there for the other.

I say this as someone prone to only half paying attention to the child I am supposed to be supervising because my iPad is much more important 😊

Mike Hughes - 03 June 2016 09:13 AM

I say this as someone prone to only half paying attention to the child I am supposed to be supervising because my iPad is much more important :)

LOL.  indeed.

For context, see my response to the SoS’s submission to the UT opposing the appeal.  And, I agree Mike, I see no problem with short breaks, for instance while waiting for the food to cook, bearing in mind frequent checking.

nevip - 03 June 2016 12:18 PM

For context, see my response to the SoS’s submission to the UT opposing the appeal.  And, I agree Mike, I see no problem with short breaks, for instance while waiting for the food to cook, bearing in mind frequent checking.

Beautiful, thanks Paul.