× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Disability benefits  →  Thread

Visual Impairment / Descriptor 12 (d)

MaggieB
forum member

Dorchester CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 271

Joined: 11 October 2010

Can a RNIB Symbol cane count as an orientation aid for descriptor 12 (d)?  It appears to be to indicate to others that a person has a VI rather than an aid to navigate so not sure if it counts

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Apologies for the premature post there.

Anyways, as you say, a symbol cane is intended as an indicator as opposed to a long cane which is specifically for navigation. How you use the latter is very prescribed and it requires specific training. The situation with symbol canes is much less clear cut.

They are about a quarter of the weight of a long cane and have no ball or other device on the end to aid navigation. They may reach down to the ground or they may not. That’s a personal choice whereas a long cane must do so. When RNIB sell them they ask you to indicate whether you are registered as sight impaired or not. Other sellers impose no such requirement, which suggests it’s more for data gathering. There is also no specific training for using a symbol cane and no agreement as to how they should best be used. There are lots of videos and blogs helping people tell the difference between a long cane and a symbol cane. Nothing is offered on how to use and I can find nothing on best practice.

Long canes don’t tend to fold. Symbol canes can do in most cases. I think it’s easy to think that this has some significance e.g. that a long cane user needs it all the time but a symbol cane user can use it as needed. I’m not sure that’s a legitimate distinction. A number of long cane users often choose to go out without in certain circumstances. It’s important to remember that the distinction between who uses what can be a fine one. Almost all long cane users have some vision. Most people look at them and wrongly think “wholly blind.” Some symbol cane users could have no vision at all but elect for symbol rather than long for a range of complex reasons including competence (some people simply never master a long cane); confidence and practicality. Most people look at symbol cane users and think “what is that? Are they blind or what? No, they can’t be. I just saw them reading.” and so on.

Whether or not it’s an orientation aid is then going to be a question of fact. Some people hold them folded up in front of them as an indicator. Some people hold out the unfolded version for similar reasons and in a variety of manners. Some people sweep them periodically from one side to the other. This alerts people to the white thing and the fact the person coming at them may not be fully able to see or avoid them. It also alerts people behind them either walking or on bikes, or, when held in front as you pass a doorway, also acts as an alert to shoppers speeding in and out. Sadly there is nothing to be done about people wearing headphones who are generally oblivious to sensory impairment around them having temporarily sensorily impaired themselves :)

The lack of a ball etc. on the end cannot be taken as meaning a symbol cane is never an orientation aid. People often use them to locate how far away objects are and that’s especially important on unfamiliar routes but can be no less important on familiar routes. The point about sight impairment being that it’s rarely about distance. It’s most likely focus; colour; light; visual field and dimensionality. So, a symbol cane in any shop or restaurant where glass; mirrors; bright lights and reflective surfaces proliferate could be critical to avoiding an accident. Always useful to remember that unfamiliar routes can be indoors and at night too.

Bear in mind some symbol canes also have red stripes on. Again, whilst that’s meant to indicate the person is dual sensory, in practical terms most people who see it have no idea what it is.

Whilst a symbol cane is a level down on paper from a long cane, in practise their uses are many and varied and it really will be a question of fact. So, having a symbol cane could mean you get to cross a road a lot quicker because somebody offers to help you. That would clearly impact on ‘reasonable time’ arguments. It could mean you feel more confident in going certain places alone and that in turn could aid following a route. Going to busy places with any kind of cane can be a mixed bag but for some people it can give them the extra protection or confidence to be in a busy place in the first place.

It isn’t an ordinary every day item so it’s clearly an aid to that extent but you need to be very clear as to what the function is. In some cases I would say it will aid following a route. 

So, after the long version, I think the short version is that in some circumstances it could be. 

[ Edited: 9 May 2017 at 11:41 am by Mike Hughes ]
MaggieB
forum member

Dorchester CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 271

Joined: 11 October 2010

Sorry Mike, not sure what that means!

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

I hit send too early. Have amended now 😊

Ed Pybus
forum member

Welfare rights worker for disabled children and families - CPAG in Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 40

Joined: 19 September 2012

The PIP assessment guide suggest no (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/600951/admp2.pdf page 55). This quotes UT CSPIP/196/2015 which I haven’t had a chance to read and can’t immediately find a copy of (does anyone have one??)

[ Edited: 9 May 2017 at 12:03 pm by Ed Pybus ]
Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

I would also appreciate a copy of said decision as I can’t find it either.

I tend to disregard much of what is in the PIP assessment guide as it’s repeatedly disconnected from what the law says. Until I read that decision I am content to stick with my original post i.e. that symbol canes are effectively used for whatever their users need to use them for and thus could be an aid within the definition depending upon the facts of the case.

MaggieB
forum member

Dorchester CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 271

Joined: 11 October 2010

Thank you, very helpful (or probably not for this client…)

Ed Pybus
forum member

Welfare rights worker for disabled children and families - CPAG in Scotland

Send message

Total Posts: 40

Joined: 19 September 2012

Mike Hughes - 09 May 2017 12:27 PM

I tend to disregard much of what is in the PIP assessment guide as it’s repeatedly disconnected from what the law says.

Indeed - Judge Wright comment is always worth remembering “The PIP Assessment Guide in particular is no more than the DWP’s view of how the regulations once enacted were thought to apply for the benefit of those carrying out the PIP assessments. Its legal worth as a permissible aid to statutory construction therefore seems negligible, if not non-existent. “...I might get mousemats made up..

But it does provide an insight into the DWPs thinking and an indication of what you are up against.

relevent case (CSPIP/196/2015) attached… I knew we had it somewhere.

 

File Attachments

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

Thanks for the decision - I’ve added it to our archive - https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/resources/personal-independence-payment

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Well that was certainly an interesting read. I’d be happy to challenge some of those findings in a FTT. Obviously of no assistance to your client Maggie but…

On the facts of that case you’d have to agree the symbol cane was not an aid, but, concluding it could never be, looks very weak and challengeable to me if that’s the only case law we have.

Looking at the other activities I think the FTT duped the UT judge with some fairly superficial knowledge of sight impairment as Judge May repeats a fundamental error in suggesting that anyone with a visual acuity of 6/18 could see a major stain on clothing.

If I could punch a wall at this point I would. Visual acuity is not a measure of visual impairment. It is one of many things which can give an indication but it’s not conclusive and with many conditions it’s positively misleading. I’ve referenced a case I’m working on at present elsewhere in this forum. Visual acuity is 6/7.5 to 9.5 with glasses. Can’t see stains on clothing as RP means Nyctalopia (night blindness) and no downward gaze. So, if the claimant leaves a shirt on the floor whilst they do their teeth and drips toothpaste all over it on an Autumn morning at what point would they see that? If its already on and over a vest so they don’t necessarily feel cold or warmth then when would they see that?